[Archived] Kicking a ball boy is it a red?

[savage90]

John Terry can't resist having a go at the kid as he walks off, can't believe that man captained our country. Sure the boy probably deserved a kick but as a man accept your team mate didn't do himself any favours and that the situation was stupid. No grace whatsoever in that man. Just a moron.

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

I had sympathy with the ball boy until I heard he was 17 and that he bragged about time wasting on twitter. To collapse on the ball and then feign injury was just pathetic. He's not a child and he knew what he was doing. He was provoking Hazard into a reaction and Hazard was stupid enough to oblige. He should never have kicked him but at the same time you cannot for one minute argue that the ball 'man' wasn't asking for it.

[Mike E]

Good story grandpa.

Tbf, I had morning assemblies at 6th form too. And I'm 21!

[jim mk2]

If Swansea had any class they would condemn the ballboy's actions and never use him again. Horrible little scumbag, the sort of arrogant scroat with attitude you see on the streets and disrupts school classrooms. Hazard should probably have tried to retrieve the ball with his hands or made a gesture to the referee for help but my sympathy is with him entirely.

[Stuart]

Especially for Gordon:

(As reported on Sky News).

The 17-year-old ballboy - who tweeted before the match that he was "needed for timewasting" - stands to inherit a fortune reported as £42m in 2008.

His parents Martin Morgan and wife Luisa are major shareholders in the Swans and he has enjoyed a lifestyle that would turn the heads of most professional footballers.

Charlie, whose Twitter following has grown to 91,000 in less than 24 hours, tweeted a picture of a brand new white Audi, in a spacious garage with signed football shirts on the wall, coupled with the hashtag "#newcar".

Describing himself as a "lad" and a "hustler" on his Twitter profile he has told followers about plans to put "200 on black" at the casino and how he does not "do coins" only "paper".

Sounds like a really nice 'kid'.

Goat, more like.

[Baz]

Ref got it right, red card for being stupid.

Swansea should relieve him of his ball"boy" duties.

It didnt affect the result, we should all be congratulating a fantastic football team, and fantastically well run club for reaching the 1st final in their history, not discussing some rich guys spoilt offspring.

[AggyBlue]

Time to get rid of ball boys altogether, what's wrong with players picking the ball up themselves?

[Rover_Shaun]

Low and behold we concede in the final minute. Arguably the 10-15 seconds that the ball boy has wasted in real time may have caused an extra minute to be added on. But for this extra time being added on, we would have won the game. As Jimmy Hill said, the ball girl (boy in this case) cost Blackburn Rovers the result!

Do you know Jimmy Hill? He also once wrongly blamed a Rovers ballgirl for Mark Aktins shinning the ball into his own net against Liverpool (as you mentioned)

At 7mins 50 you see here give Nicol the ball quickly. According to Jimmy Hill it was her fault Liverpool equalised in injury time.

Ball boys do nothing worse than what keepers do. Especially with that stupid rule change where you can take a goal kick from wherever you want inside the 6 yard area. So most keepers go to the opposite side to where the ball went out of play

[thenodrog]

Tbf, I had morning assemblies at 6th form too. And I'm 21!

Proper school too eh?

[dazmaz]

Hazard clearly went for the ball, there was no intention to hurt the teen (Who was 17, keep in mind Hazard is also barely out of his teens too) all this talk of him being a boy is hogwash.

My question is why on earth did the lad have to get the ball, it was literally 3 yards away from Hazard and he had no need to retrieve the ball.

Have to say he does deserve an Oscar for his acting, really milked it

actually after watching the clip several times, even if Hazard had made contact the ball dude was holding his 'ribs' where as from what i can see it would of been the kidney area that took the hit

[Mike E]

Proper school too eh?

Nope. QEGS.

[roversR4ever]

Its simple really.

1. Clubs appoint the ball boys - if the ball boys start taking far too long as in this case they are interfering with play which can affect the game. Clubs should face severe fines - in fact if it starts to happens a few times then points should be deducted as its actually affecting the game itself. Its not just whether the ref is able to add the time onto the game, it affects the pace of the game. Gives teams chance to reorganise etc.

2. The player did over react though some could perhaps understand the emotions of the player. (BUT im pretty sure you could find many examples of chelsea players rolling aorund with "injuries" etc to run the clock down. Would he have gone and kicked a player on the opposition team if they were doing it?)

So yes in this case player deserved a red, but also club responsible for ball boy should also recieve punishment. Lets face it there are a lot of other sports where the kind of behaviour the ball boy displayed would be far from acceptable. The clubs are responsible for the ball boys behaviour. The thing is if a player is doing it the ref can take action, but its far harder for them to control a ball boys actions appart from add more time to the game.

[forumquizmaster]

FFS! Get a bloody grip! Cantona was intent on inflicting gbh on Matthew Simmonds simple as! Hazard on the other hand was intent on kicking the ball out from under a ball boy whose sole intention was to keep the ball away from him and delay proceedings. He did and any contact was a. minimal, b. unintentional and c. with his ankle / shin not his boot). You appear to be unclear about the role of ball boys so I think I should remind you at this point that the entire purpose of having ball boys is to avoid delays in play and not to cause them!

What Hazard did is what we've all done at school or on the local rec when someone is pratting around. I'll leave you to ponder that if the ball boy had been a player he would have had a free kick awarded against him for obstruction. Also if Hazard had really meant to hurt him he would have done.

Anybody who sides with the ball boy must be quite happy for that practice to continue in the future.

btw Paul.... back to normal.... I completely disagree with your pov as usual.

I've disagreed with you on other issues, but this is absolutely bang on the money for me.

[SouthAussieRover]

Thank heavens the ballboy wasn't actually hurt.

Otherwise we'd never hear the end of it and Hazard might have faced deportation.

[Mike E]

Thank heavens the ballboy wasn't actually hurt.

Otherwise we'd never hear the end of it and Hazard might have faced deportation.

If he'd actually been hurt, I might have even applauded Hazard tbh.

[thenodrog]

I've disagreed with you on other issues,

You've been wrong to whatever the issue.

Thank heavens the ballboy wasn't actually hurt.

Otherwise we'd never hear the end of it and Hazard might have faced deportation.

Really SAR? Did you kick a ball boy once then?

[LeChuck]

Just found out the ball 'boy' is 17! I thought he was 13 or something.

Hazard is only 22 himself. Hardly man on boy...

[Guest Norbert]

The story should be dropped now. The Ball[ess] boy comes across as a bit of a brat, Hazard should get 3 games holiday and we should move on.

[The Dart]

I think a red is very harsh. He didn't even kick the teen. What's the card for intent?

[Stuart]

Of course he kicked him. Look at the agony etched on his face. You can't fake that.

[den]

Hazard's been charged with violent conduct.

[Blue n White Rover]

Hazard will probably get a 4 game suspension. John Terry got a 4 match ban for his incident with Anton Ferdinand. Football has gone mad.

[jim mk2]

This is all arse about face. The ballboy should be in the dock, not Hazard. Chelsea should fight this charge.

[Gally]

No sympathy whatsoever with either of them.

However, the justification that he was 'going for the ball' is beyond ridiculous. He's not a player, the ball is not there to be won.

[SydneyRover]

No sympathy whatsoever with either of them.

However, the justification that he was 'going for the ball' is beyond ridiculous. He's not a player, the ball is not there to be won.

They were down two nil, the ball boy was being deliberately obstructive and Hazard wanted to get the ball back as quickly as possible so they could get on with the game.

Obviously it's easy for us in the cold light of day to say he should have alerted the ref, but the point is that it's totally different to it he'd just given the ball boy a proper kick without trying to get the ball.