Since there seems to be a case of selective reading going around, the post to which I (and four others) replied to was: Apologies accepted in advance.
Well, he didn't answer this and then somehow ended up with a red card. But I already did so earlier, and as well as those, I would now add your later comment that you would rather believe the "dead girlfriend" story than consider Hazard's action as violent conduct. Any National or State or even lower referee should view it as violent conduct. It is difficult for me to accept that a National referee would not see this as violent conduct. Just an amazing statement. PH
No, there is a very real difference in intent and a very real difference in result. He kicked a Soccer ball that a person was laying on top of. STUPID move. He shouldn't have done it and it deserves the red card. But he didn't wind up and kick the kid. Just as I doubt John Busch punched a ball boy like all the SKC fans were claiming. He went for the ball aggressively and his actions created more contact than necessary for retrieving the ball which resulted in something that appeared worse than it actually was. And if you can't distinguish between purposefully KICKING someone and making a stupid decision to kick at a ball that someone is laying on top of to attempt to dislodge than... well, then I don't know what to say. Deliberately kicking someone in order to cause them pain to give up something is different than kicking at the object to dislodge it. It may be classified as the same thing to a Ref, but in reality they are different orders of magnitude. Lets say someone is holding something of yours and you want it back. Silly kid games, I know. So you reach for it and try to grab it but they won't let go. Say you get a grip on it and are trying to wrestle it away and end up throwing the person to the ground in the process as you are trying to yank it free. That is different than just running up and tackling the person and driving them into the ground. The first action is just being stupid and the second is that you are purposefully trying to cause harm. Or, lets say you try to punch the object loose, like you would see in a football game with a player trying to cause a fumble. And your fist doesn't connect well and you make some contact with the persons stomach. That is different than purposefully punching someone in the stomach or ribs or wherever trying to get them to release the object because they are in pain. The actions are still stupid, they are still dangerous and on a soccer field would be deserving of punishment. But they are definitely different then intentionally causing harm. I get that my posts are mixed in with some fan ranting. My point likely gets lost to a degree among the other posts being made. I don't follow English Football at all. Not one bit. I have no rooting interest. I just saw the incident and have an opinion.
asoc, I understand you are trying to be reasonable about this, but I still think your whole argument, much like Chad's, rests on the assumption that you know what was in Hazard's head (and also, therefore, that others are wrong if they think something else was in Hazard's head). Apologies for quoting my own post, but I think this might have got lost in the shuffle and this passage is key to countering your assertions (note that the initial "you," is Chad): You can't look at that play and be certain that he intended to kick the ball and the kid was just collateral damage. Just as no one can be certain he truly meant to kick the kid and used the ball as an excuse. It might be either of those extremes. It's likely somewhere in the middle (I personally lean toward the latter, but that's my opinion). Regardless of what the truth is insofar as what Hazard was thinking and meant to do, A) kicking the kid was a very likely, if not certain, outcome and B) it's still a red card. Now, I know you've stipulated that it's still a red card so you're not fighting the conclusion that we all have here. But that makes me wonder and ask what the debate is about when you talk about "different orders of magnitude." I know you pointed out that, in your opinion, he didn't set out to do intentional harm. I don't think anyone has said here, with certainty, that he did. I think a lot of people probably believe it, just as you believe he didn't. But that isn't factoring at all into the referee decision we'd be making so I don't really understand what the debate is about. If everyone is agreeing that this is a red card, is the vitriol and debate really just over how good or bad of a person everyone thinks Hazard is? Because if it is, I've got no opinion and can just stop posting now.
From what I was reading, people were going beyond the simple referee discussion and into the whole business of him purposefully kicking a minor on the ground. They were talking about him being arrested etc. That doesn't relate to the how the referee makes the decision. That is talking about real life, not how the referee handles the game. I don't have a problem if someone sees the kick differently. If they feel he kicked the individual on purpose and wasn't just trying dislodge the ball in a very stupid manner, then that's fine. We can disagree on that point. It definitely looks bad imo and I won't fault someone for thinking the kick was purely to cause harm. From a FA perspective, maybe these factors come into play with respect to the severity of punishment. But from a strictly refereeing point of view, the player is rightfully sent off imo. How that is handled after that isn't really up to the referee's is it?
That's a fair counterpoint, but I'd point out that police could certainly be involved even if an assault is not intended and also if he wasn't a minor (and that, insofar as talking to the kid and asking if he wanted to press charges, they were involved, per news reports). But those issues did become part of the discussion and they are debatable, so I understand what you're saying. Again, fair enough. Personally, my opinion is how I phrased it above... that he saw an opportunity to teach a punk a lesson while he was going for the ball. But that's just my opinion. Objectively, I know he kicked him and is guilty of violent conduct.
"You’re responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions. You’re not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else’s actions. The most important thing for me and for you is to think about the consequences of your actions. What can you effect? These are the things to keep in mind." -Noam Chomsky
if you read the guardian or soccernet.com the ballboy went into the dressingroom afterward- apologies were exchanged. hazard has 3 game suspension.the ball boy got his 15 minutes of fame. Hazard got punished. the ball boy does not want to press charges. life goes on. Chelsea have an ugly cloud over them- John terry racism(ashley cole too), obi mikel and clatts what scares me is players in england or people saying they would do the same thing that hazard did, and then saying they are not condoning violence.
In the Guardian online: The FA have not made any decision yet. 3 match ban is minimum but could be made longer by the FA. The youth and his family are not pressing charges, but apparently police are looking into acting on complaints from members of the public. This was the case in the Terry-Ferdinand incident last year. PH
thanks ph for the update. I was hoping the whole thing could be resolved quickly and maybe a 6 game ban would suffice
As you correctly state, none of us know what was going through Hazard's mind. Why then do you lean toward the worst end of your spectrum, that he meant to kick the kid? Is that opinion based on anything?
I don't understand why a simple referee decision has turned into such a debate. Hazard knows he screwed up. He apologized to the kid. The FA will decide proper punishment. that's it. whether the kid was 14, 17 or 19 doesn't matter to the referee. Kicking at someone is VC. If the GK was laying on the ball no one would be debating if he was trying to kick the ball or the person. Intent doesn't matter. He kicked him. Period. I wouldn't care if he shoved the boy and the kid stood still. Red. gone. don't make contact with a non player.
Absolutely. Body language and how the whole situation itself develops initially with Hazard rushing over. I could expound on it a lot, but I won't because that opinion doesn't matter since it's not factoring into the referee decision, as I've stated over and over. I could just as easily ask why you assign the most pure motives, but I won't because it's irrelevant and I don't care. I only care that people seem to be assigning those motives in an attempt to lessen, justify or mitigate the act that Hazard committed.
So you believe Hazard deliberately intended, in that split second, to "teach a young punk a lesson" and not to get the ball back in play as quickly as possible. You say it doesn't matter but it does.
No, it really doesn't because if I thought the only thing he was trying to do was get the ball, it'd still be a red card. The act itself is violent conduct. From your earlier posts and some of your PMs to me, it's clear you are fishing for some sort of bias, implying that because I believe he knew what he was doing, I'm harshly judging him and mistreating him. If the disciplinary decision was going to be different if I assigned the same motives to Hazard that Chad, asoc and others have, you'd have a point. But it wouldn't be, so you don't. It's a red card no matter what motive is assigned, hence the motive is irrelevant. That's the textbook definition of "it doesn't matter." You really are just trolling at this point. "You say it doesn't matter but it does" isn't exactly the most profound referee analysis we've seen here.
Is the predictable consequence of kicking a ball that someone is covering with their body that you will kick them? I would say it most definitely is. He is responsible for his actions.
I have never disputed the ref's issuing of a card and I won't have any problem with any additional games he is suspended. This discussion has strayed far from the ref's actions from the beginning, entirely due to the fact that we are all in agreement that what he did was 100% correct. None can dispute that. So what are we really debating? Well, 6 pages later, it has been about the motives of both Hazard and the ball kid, neither of which has anything to do with the ref's decision, which again, was never, ever questioned. You have the stated your opinion that you think Hazard was malicious in his intent, to teach some sort of lesson. You stated that for a reason. I am just asking for clarification of what that reason is. Other than that, there really isn't anything left to debate.
Go back to the 2nd page where you insist another poster was being unbiased, attack his credibility as a ref, then claim Hazard was contesting a ball out of play, that didn't belong to him.
But in all fairness, your early posts in this discussion indicated that you did not accept that this was violent conduct by Hazard. If you now agree that it was VC and that the red card was correct, then it seems that you have learned something, and that is good. And you did make that snarky comment about referee certification which would not have endeared you to many of the regulars on this "Refereeing" forum. PH
Hazard deserves the red and the suspension he will get. Swansea deserves a fine and the ball boy should be banned from the sideline of any future match. The ball boys are to facilitate the play on the field, not to deliberately obstruct it.
To avoid any such repeats, I repeat my recommendation that the ballboys be assigned from a neutral source, not from the club team.
But since they're not, we as referees have to pay attention to them. It's not uncommon to have ball boys in low level games in the US. Just remember that they tend to play games and that they should be dismissed if the players are getting aggravated.
That poster has a red card for a reason and the contesting a ball out of play was a joke. Boy, you guys sure are uptight.