Hey, you are the one that called me out on something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, so I just wanted to correct you on this. I don't know how you can interpret my actions as "jerk -y", but please DO NOT explain. Let's talk about the Chelsea game instead.
I know not a single national/state ref that talks or posts flippantly like you do. Are you sure you want to convey that image? Hey, it's your world.
Did you miss the part when the kid declined to press charges? The point is he had the power to press charges. Learn them facts.
I truly don't understand your point. It's like you're trying to disabuse us of a myth we all have where we all think that Hazard just ran up to the kid and kicked him out of the blue. We all know what happened. And kicking the kid, which happened, is not excused or justified because the ball is under him. You can call that absolutist or without subtlety, but it doesn't really matter. The decision is a red card no matter what Hazard's intention was. We can't put ourselves into Hazard's mind. You want to assume the best, which is that he was frustrated that the ball was under the ballboy, that the ballboy was messing with him, and that, through clouded judgment, he kicked at the ball, not realizing he would also likely kick the kid. Most, I would surmise by all the responses, would probably believe that he was frustrated by the ballboy, he realized the ball was under him and he realized he could kick at it while also whacking the kid and teaching him a lesson. The truth might be somewhere in between (how's that for non-absolutist?). But none of that erases the fact that it just doesn't matter. Hazard kicked the ballboy and has to be sent off. Introducing subtlety or trying to explain away his actions isn't relevant. I think this goes to the point you're trying to make above, which is to convince us that a myth we are believing in isn't really true. No one here is arguing that Hazard wound up and deliberately kicked through the kid's side in an attempt to collapse a lung. But he still kicked him pretty hard. Hard enough to dislodge a ball that was underneath his chest or stomach. Regardless of how hard you personally find that to be, I don't understand why this is a point worth debating. It's silly and disingenuous, yet you raise the specter of a 5-year old when no one came close to saying that? It is a fact, is it not, that most ballboys are much younger than 17? I hope we can also all accept that Hazard had no idea how old this kid was. You put those two together and it's an adult kicking someone, in a position, who is a youth. Do you think parents are going to want their kids being ballboys if they realize the professionals can physically engage them? I'm baffled that you think I'm being disingenuous here. Moreover, I don't care one bit if he's 22 or if he's 30. I wouldn't care if he was a 17-year old phenom and the ballboy was the same age. He's a professional player. He can't go around kicking people because they frustrate him. There's no confrontation started by the player in the last one--it's a ballboy being a jerk. And guess what? He didn't get kicked! As for the other three, the players in question all received red cards and/or were suspended after the fact. So I'm not sure how this supports your argument. I'll start, first, by pointing out that you're talking about seconds possibly being lost in a game where professional players crowd around referees at every possibly controversial decision and hold up the match, likely to the effect of several minutes. So if we want to start addressing the plague that timewasting is on the game, I suggest we start with systematic mass dissent and drop rogue ballboys a little further down the list. As it stands, if and when it's noticed, the referee adds time. It's pretty simple. Now, to your second sentiment here, which is another attempt at justifying, mitigating or excusing Hazard's actions. Ignorance is not an excuse here. If he didn't know a substitution was up, that's fine. But it's not his restart. He has no right to retrieve the ball. FIFA is pretty clear on this and even went as far, at a youth World Cup, to institute an automatic yellow card experiment for anyone that touched the ball first when it wasn't their restart. The experiment (thankfully, in my eyes) failed because it was too draconian. But the sentiment has never been dropped and it's even part of our instructions, as referees, after goals are scored. This wasn't Hazard's ball to retrieve. He's got not right and no business going over to the ball. Sorry for not using the exact analogy that you approve of, but the point still stands. Plus, your analogy is over-the-top in the other direction because you've got the kid messing with something that belongs to me (the ball didn't belong to Hazard) and also doing something that has nothing to do with his duties. Regardless, in my scenario, your scenario and everything in between, I'm not doing close to anything that would give him an "ouchie." Oh, and I'm not kicking him in the ribs either.
Here, a DA can press charges without the family if this act of violence was so egregious. I can guarantee that at one of my practices there will be a kid on top of the ball and teammates 'assaulting' him.
@ NC Soccer United - Again, I am confused by your statements more and more. If you found any of my postings unfit for a national ref, then I am even more confused as before. Would you like to say which of my comments you found to be "inapropriate for a national/state" referee?
I guess you are well versed in UK Law. I guess our assault laws here must be the same over there. It must be.
It appears to me he is kicking at the ball under the ball boy. Its hard to tell because of the loose fitting clothing on the kid. But the ball does come out the other side. If the kid was kicked he would have rolled over the ball in the direction of the force of the kick and the ball would have ended up on the side near the Chelsea player. I still have no issue with the red card. And he may have indeed made some forceful contact with the side of the kid in the process. But it isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. It is still bad, but not that bad.
You figure it out. I never heard Alex Prus tell me that the attacker should have kicked that punk a little harder. You are a few steps away from MLS and you are invoking emotional responses as a national ref. Really? Scary.
I said no such thing - maybe you should quote the exact comment that disturbed you. My intent was clearly not to hurt your feelings.
Not sure what you are saying. I have not commented on the player's actions, only the ball boy's actions. Sorry if this is what you expect out of a 17-yo. I have higher expectations.
Weather he kicked the ball or kicked the kid, it does not matter in my opinion. He kicked at a person, not involved in the game, who was a minor, who was laying on the ground, for the purpose of getting the ball back for a restart that was not his team's.
In my relatively limited referee career, I see a ballboy acting like a child (he is 17) trying assert himself and his "authority" (to return the ball the correct player, the goalkeeper for a PK?) and an emotional soccer player trying to take the ball from him. This kid ends up laying his body on top of the ball to keep it from the player and the player attempting to dislodge it by kicking the ball. This seems like a rather immature effort to exert his control over something he should have simply picked up and tossed to the GK. The result (as a referee) VC red card for the player and let the FA/club decide the consequence. Replace the ballboy and restart the game. If Hazard had kicked any other person laying on the turf in the FOP, it would likely be the same consequence for Hazard, or SFP if during play. It doesn't matter what his intent was or the level of force, he kicked towards a person on the ground. The ball boy, I am going to guess, having never been one or had one, that the time wasting aspect is commonplace to some extent. I could also see the time wasting as being a comment to what he will be doing, wasting his time on the pitch being a ball boy for dad's team.
It's a long, strange trip, but worth every minute. Look forward to it, enjoy it, learn from it — and good luck.
Teenagers are willfully cynical pretty much by nature. If that was the criteria for lashing out at one, there'd be a good number of teenagers writhing in pain on a daily basis. Aside from that, a premier league footballer needs to exercise better judgement and perhaps the referees should exert more control over what the ball boys are doing. The ball boy was likely doing what the club asked of him. I'm not blaming the kid because a pro player can't control himself. This is far worse than the incident in MLS this past season where a ball kid was called a homophobic slur.
I have nearly two in my own home, I know this and trust me, I'd love to kick my kids from time to time. My point was just using the word 'teenager' is quite a bit disingenuous. To say a 13 yo has the same level of maturity as a 17 yo is really way off base. Throw in that the ball kids are likely players themselves from academy teams or whatever, they know what is at stake if they walk REEEEEEAL slow to get a ball. To the point that the player knows what he was doing. He moved quicker to shield the ball as 'his job' when he noticed Hazard coming for it. And finally when he jokes about it that he would #timewasting. It is clear what he was doing. Didn't see the MLS event, only heard about it. I am blaming the kid for what happened (but that should not be read that I condone what Hazard did). But if he properly did his job (which he has done for the club in the past), the opportunity for this to happen does not happen.
Pretty obvious the kid was/is an SS. However, has absolutely nothing to do with Hazards actions. Even if the kid would have picked up the ball and left the stadium with it, Hazard had no right to the ball. It wasn't his teams ball. There is absolutely no reason for him to be going to get the ball in the first place. Certainly no reason to be taking it from someone, certainly no reason to be kicking at someone to get it away from them. It wasn't his teams ball. This is completely on Hazard. So it doesn't matter what the kid did, whether he fell on the ball or tried to keep it from Hazard, or took his time getting the ball, or picked up the ball and punted it into the stands, IT WASN'T HAZARD'S BALL. When it's your throw-in, goal kick, corner kick, free-kick, kick-off, fine go get the ball. When it's the other team's, leave the F'ing ball alone.
1. The player absolutely had to be sent off, with post-match review and punishment. 2. The ball boy should have been immediately dismissed from his duties with a his actions outlined in the match report, regardless of whether he was kicked or was not kicked. 3. See #1 4. I find it a long stretch to believe that that ball boy is a minor, if he is it's just barely. I will concede that I could be mistaken. 5. See #1 6. I call shenganigans on his claim of a broken rib. Except in his lawyer's fantasy world lined with banknotes. 7. See #1