Tyrone Shoelaces Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 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. I couldn't agree more, the little kean didn't get what he deserved unfortunately. Andy Todd would have kicked his nuts to the back of his neck.
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
thenodrog Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Farcical. 1. Despite noises to the contrary by their action today the FA are actually condoning cheating! 2. There must be some irony here as the FA resort again to video evidence despite video technology not being allowed to establish accurate judgement for on field incidents. 3. They don't appear to have taken any notice of it. One can see from his expression that Hazards actions were neither malicious nor violent. 4. If it was 'off the field' how far are Plod from becoming involved as with the Cantona incident?
stuwilky Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 I think a red is very harsh. He didn't even kick the teen. What's the card for intent? Red.
thenodrog Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Maybe we should have a poll for a bit of fun..... and to save football being destroyed by idiots. Do you consider Hazard's action as "Violent conduct"? Y/N.
Rover_Shaun Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Violent is a strong word. He should get banned for extra games just for sheer stupidity
stuwilky Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Subtle as ever Stu. I just answered the question Mr den
Steve Moss Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 No. The "boy" deserved a bit of a kicking.
adopted scouser Posted January 26, 2013 Posted January 26, 2013 Surely today at least one ball boy rolled on the ball to make the crowd laugh ?!
Exiled_Rover Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 They should uphold Hazard's ban. 3 games for sheer stupidity. There isn't really much you can do to the ball boy - obviously he shouldn't be allowed to do that job again, but as I understand it he was pulled in as emergency cover. I'd suggest something harsher, but as his daddy owns 20% of the club and he's clearly raised a @#/? of a son he's never going to punish him.
47er Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Interestingly, when we lost that FA Cup-tie to Liverpool in the late 80's in the last seconds, Jimmy Thingee on MOTD blamed the ball girl for giving the ball back too quickly! Poor old Super Atko (sigh).
thenodrog Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Violent is a strong word. He should get banned for extra games just for sheer stupidity They should uphold Hazard's ban. 3 games for sheer stupidity.There isn't really much you can do to the ball boy - obviously he shouldn't be allowed to do that job again, but as I understand it he was pulled in as emergency cover. I'd suggest something harsher, but as his daddy owns 20% of the club and he's clearly raised a @#/? of a son he's never going to punish him. I've been googling around a bit but unfortunately I can't seem to find a reference to 'sheer stupidity' as a punishable offence in the Rules of Football. Maybe you two could help?
Stuart Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 Interestingly, when we lost that FA Cup-tie to Liverpool in the late 80's in the last seconds, Jimmy Thingee on MOTD blamed the ball girl for giving the ball back too quickly! Jimmy Thingee: The fan who ruined football by abolishing the maximum wage.
Guest Norbert Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 To be fair to Jimmy Hill, weren't footballers paid a crap wage? I know my grandad could have been a professional rugby league player, but turned it down as he got more money working at the steel mill in the early 50's. And how much say did the player have over moving clubs etc?
Stuart Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 To be fair to Jimmy Hill, weren't footballers paid a crap wage? I know my grandad could have been a professional rugby league player, but turned it down as he got more money working at the steel mill in the early 50's. And how much say did the player have over moving clubs etc?It's football, something you do for the love of the game. They probably deserve more because its a very short career but we now have some players on a million quid a month! Even a million quid a year is too much!There should have been safeguards put in place to protect football clubs. Instead it opened the door for greedy footballers and their agents to cream money out of the game while clubs struggle to get by or end up in massive debt.
dazmaz Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I've been googling around a bit but unfortunately I can't seem to find a reference to 'sheer stupidity' as a punishable offence in the Rules of Football. Maybe you two could help? I can help explain that, your looking in the wrong places. Its the 'laws of the game' you need to look at still no mention in there though
Guest Norbert Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 It's football, something you do for the love of the game. They probably deserve more because its a very short career but we now have some players on a million quid a month! Even a million quid a year is too much!There should have been safeguards put in place to protect football clubs. Instead it opened the door for greedy footballers and their agents to cream money out of the game while clubs struggle to get by or end up in massive debt. I agree with you on those points. There should have been guards against such problems, but I guess they had not expected such problems to happen 30 or so years later. And let's be honest, footballers are not usually very academic or have the time to learn a trade when they're some promising 16 year old attatched to a club so they probably need to get a good wage when they are playing as they don't often have much to fall back skills wise on when they're 40 years old. The 'love of the game' is great and it must be brillant to have a job you love but is that going to pay your mortgage when you're 55, got 2 O levels or 6 GCSEs, a family and all the rest of it? Obviously things are a bit different now, as the academy system has elements of education, so young players have something to fall back on, but what about the players who came before? They often had to choose between school or football. Jimmy Hill did play a part in the current mess, a big part, the formation of the Premier League, the auctioning off of TV rights, the media obsession with players' personal lives and society's increasing demand for consumer goods and status symbols played their part in the current swamp of despair.
Majiball Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I'd love FIFA to do their job and protect the game with maximum wages/budgets etc. The current ones coming in are @#/? as it's still as always about feeding the top table. Trouble is FIFA are just too bent to do anything about it expcept line their pockets.
Stuart Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I agree with you on those points. There should have been guards against such problems, but I guess they had not expected such problems to happen 30 or so years later.And let's be honest, footballers are not usually very academic or have the time to learn a trade when they're some promising 16 year old attatched to a club so they probably need to get a good wage when they are playing as they don't often have much to fall back skills wise on when they're 40 years old. The 'love of the game' is great and it must be brillant to have a job you love but is that going to pay your mortgage when you're 55, got 2 O levels or 6 GCSEs, a family and all the rest of it? Obviously things are a bit different now, as the academy system has elements of education, so young players have something to fall back on, but what about the players who came before? They often had to choose between school or football. Jimmy Hill did play a part in the current mess, a big part, the formation of the Premier League, the auctioning off of TV rights, the media obsession with players' personal lives and society's increasing demand for consumer goods and status symbols played their part in the current swamp of despair. Players should be expected to get a trade once they have finished playing. There are many sports related careers or they could re-train. Given the money swashing around football these days, it would be unthinkable that Wayne Rooney could become a plumber but I'm sure that happens all the time for lower league players. Your point is a good one though, without anything to fall back on, it can be difficult for a player after football has finished. It's a bit sensationalist but this link http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4588254/126-ex-footballers-are-in-prison.htmlhttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4588254/126-ex-footballers-are-in-prison.html suggests that some players have no decent income stream in comparison to what they were earning as a player. If the gaps wasn't so great, they wouldn't have to attempt to find ways to make large sums of money quickly because they wouldn't have such high costs (way beyond their means after football). It would also help fans identify with them again. Paying young lads vast sums of money seems to turn them (not all of them) into cocky arrogant individuals who don't care for the club, the fans (they don't pay my wages) and even the law in some cases. It might sound like I'm harking back to a different era (one that I was only just aware of, to be fair), never to be seen again, but with the types of kids growing up these days thinking this is normal, it's only going to get worse. I'm surprised that - like a military career - there isn't a pension that players can draw from once they have finished playing. There must be enough money in the game to support it. Rather than have millions in their bank account, why not give them money throughout their retirement. I've not given this all that much thought but I'm just putting it out there.
forumquizmaster Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I'm surprised that - like a military career - there isn't a pension that players can draw from once they have finished playing. There must be enough money in the game to support it. Rather than have millions in their bank account, why not give them money throughout their retirement. I've not given this all that much thought but I'm just putting it out there. I'm fairly sure such a pension scheme is in operation. I thought I read somewhere that Colin Hendry draws around £90k pa from his!?
Stuart Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I'm fairly sure such a pension scheme is in operation. I thought I read somewhere that Colin Hendry draws around £90k pa from his!? It's a tough life!
Majiball Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I work a lot with 16-21 year olds and agree with almost all of what Princess has said. I'd make everyone do military service as in the old days regardless of career, too many of the great british atributes have been lost and it's my generations fault as you can't blame the kids for the way we have raised them. As for footballers, no 14-18 year should be earning 10K+ a week, they learn no morals or values and will never really have a chance. It's compounded by clubs employing people to help them organise their lifes as surely someone of adult age can arrange everyday items? go check out liverpool academies car pack 100K cars being driven by 17 year old kids, laughable. Trouble is what people don't consider is we have/are creating a generation of people who just expect things to happen. They don't work hard, have to earn anything anymore, they don't go the extra mile. It's little wonder we can't produce footballers like we used to society has changed to much and now we nuture the ego in them to their long-term detriment.
Amo Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I work a lot with 16-21 year olds and agree with almost all of what Princess has said.I'd make everyone do military service as in the old days regardless of career, too many of the great british atributes have been lost and it's my generations fault as you can't blame the kids for the way we have raised them. As for footballers, no 14-18 year should be earning 10K+ a week, they learn no morals or values and will never really have a chance. It's compounded by clubs employing people to help them organise their lifes as surely someone of adult age can arrange everyday items? go check out liverpool academies car pack 100K cars being driven by 17 year old kids, laughable. Trouble is what people don't consider is we have/are creating a generation of people who just expect things to happen. They don't work hard, have to earn anything anymore, they don't go the extra mile. It's little wonder we can't produce footballers like we used to society has changed to much and now we nuture the ego in them to their long-term detriment. Agreed. Very few young players have to 'earn their stripes' anymore. You have kids as young as 12 being poached by Europe's elite, having everything handed to them on a silver platter when they're simply not mature enough to handle that responsibility. All it does is breed a generation of entitled youngsters and wasted potential.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.