I can't believe this is a comment from a National referee. I would have expected something much better. Premeditated? It could not have happened if Hazard had stayed on the FOP as he should have done when it is a clear goal kick for the other team. Baby? stomped? broken ribs? who ever said anything like that? Beyonce? This is a forum for referees, not for over the top exaggeration. PH
Ok, I will get serious for just one second (I'm just in a funny mood now). While we focus (rightfully so) on Hazard's actions and we all know he should have just let the referee handle it, let's also agree this kid even looks annoying. Yes - red card is surely justified. Now, can we go back to sticking it to the annoying kid?
Maybe the ballboys should not be assigned by the home club, but rather from a neutral source like the referee team?
And if Hazard wouldn't have gone over there, the goalkeeper has the ball back two seconds later, and it doesn't matter one tick since there is a substitution happening anyway.
Just to comment on this, if you rewatch the video, you see the AR watching the entire incident. He knew what happened. At the professional level you don't need to wave you flag madly when something like this happens, you have your beep flags and headsets. Hazard was done, regardless of the reaction of Swansea.
Wow...Just wow. A statement like that completely eliminates any potential credibility you might have from your claim of being a national referee.
The only time a professional soccer player should have any physical contact with a non-player/substitute/coach would be a situation where a handshake would be acceptable. A "professional" kicking at a person not involved in the match, especially one who is a minor, is 100% unacceptable. Anyone who is a referee who says this isn't violent conduct is insane. Any fan who says this isn't 100% violent conduct is ignorant of the laws or a blind fanatic of Chelsea.
don't forget to tell the police how your child was acting like an inappropriate douche that led to the situation.
And before that he can explain how the man who kicked his son acted in an inappropriate manner to his son in the first place, and possibly pushed him over. (I only say possibly because it's a point of debate. I think Hazard pushes him over, you may disagree.)
No doubt some contact was made. Pushed over? I'd say more of a dive with embellishment. If this happened in the 18 yd box, the 'kid' (age 17, there are pro's that age) would be looking for a penalty. But that really isn't the topic for this thread, though it is what it has digressed into.
I am pretty sure the police wouldn't care about the ball boy other than the FACT that Hazard kicked someone. What did the ball boy do that was illegal? Not a damn thing, but Hazard is the one with the legal issue. Nice try.
Sorry, but this interpretation of the events is absolutist and completely without subtlety. Of course we know that the ball is under the kid, but the tight angle gives the visual impression that he is only kicking the kid. No matter what you know about where the ball is, the visual impression is one of Hazard kicking the kid in the side, and that visual impression influences how the situation is perceived. You realize that you can kick something and pull back, or you can kick something and follow through, right? One is a lot more violent than the other. It's analogous to the difference between pulling a punch or completely decking a guy. It's also analogous to the difference between bunting and taking a full swing with a baseball bat. This is a silly, possibly disingenuous line of argument. The fact that there's no bright line between the age at which this is or isn't acceptable doesn't at all mean that the ages of the parties involved doesn't make a difference in how the matter should be perceived. Or are you really arguing that a 22-year-old getting physical with an 17/18-year-old is just as bad as a 30-year-old getting physical with a 5-year-old? To name a few... http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/...-see-red-as-armenia-falls-to-defeat-in-sofia/ http://www.socceramerica.com/article/46161/clip-of-clark-ballboy-slur-triggers-rights-dispute.html http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/239757,tim-cahill-sees-red-over-ballboy-row.aspx http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/blog...s-to-fight-opposing-goalkeeper?urn=sow-271918 So who do you think has the power to address this, then? And why don't they? Also, if we're getting into what Hazard did and didn't know, I'd say it's far from a given that he knew a substitute was coming on. As far as he knew, he was trying to speed things up. Whether or not it was an effective approach to achieving that objective is irrelevant. Not at all a good analogy. Imagine, instead, that one of your colleagues who's competing against you for a promotion brings his 17-year-old son into the office to intern. On the day of a big deadline, the kid starts randomly unplugging your mouse a few times, and then he eventually lies on top of your keyboard. Although certainly inappropriate, one might be able to understand it if, given the heat of the moment and the absurdity of the situation, you were to forcibly get your keyboard out from under the kid, and while you would try to avoid seriously hurting him, you probably wouldn't be overly concerned if he got a little ouchie in the process.
Umm...this was my next statement you missed to read.. "Ok, I will get serious for just one second (I'm just in a funny mood now). While we focus (rightfully so) on Hazard's actions and we all know he should have just let the referee handle it, let's also agree this kid even looks annoying. Yes - red card is surely justified. Now, can we go back to sticking it to the annoying kid? "
Your analogy isn't much better. You tell it as if the ball boy fell on the ball with no provoking. If Hazard doesn't go over there, he's not falling down on top of the ball, simple. Also, a better analogy than laying on the keyboard would be he just takes your keyboard after being provoked, just because that is a lot more probably of a thing to happen than someone laying on your keyboard. So as full of an analogy that is comparable I can come up with by tacking the relevant things on is "Imagine that one of your colleagues who's competing against you for a promotion brings his 17-year-old son into the office to intern. On the day of a big deadline, the kid starts randomly unplugging your mouse a few times. You do something (lets say yelling at him for doing this) and then he takes your keyboard instead. What do you do?" The answers to that, of course, are 1) You don't do something to provoke the kid into taking your keyboard in the first place. But given that we are past that point, 2) You ask for the keyboard back and you wait. You don't get into a tussle with a kid. That's just asking for trouble. Especially because something that is also important to remember is you have a boss who can do a much better job of compelling the kid to give the keyboard back, and he can extend your deadline if something like this happens.
You should do a better search I guess. Here is an assessment of mine (as a National ) from a simple PDL game - read up http://soccerrefereeusa.com/images/RefereeCenter/ref1.pdf
I see what you did there. All teenagers are created equal. Got it. There is a huge difference between a 13 yo and a 17 yo, especially one who is acting willfully and cynically.