Capital One Cup Semi-Final - 8/9/22/23 January *** Spoilers ***

Amongst all this drivel a serious question , can the FA punish him even further than the 3? game ban for violent conduct since the Ref saw and acted on it ?
 
Amongst all this drivel a serious question , can the FA punish him even further than the 3? game ban for violent conduct since the Ref saw and acted on it ?

I'm pretty sure they could. Ben Thatcher received a long ban for the Mendes incident even when the ref saw the incident and booked him.
 
He was aiming for the ball; how anyone can say he was aiming to kick him in the ribs is beyond ridiculous.

Whether it was intentional or not it was certainly reckless from Hazard and from that position he must have realised he would make contact with the boys body. Perhaps he misjudged the position of the ball or perhaps it was intentional, only Mr Hazard can answer that question.
 
He was aiming for the ball; how anyone can say he was aiming to kick him in the ribs is beyond ridiculous.
He tries to pick up the ball while it's on the ball boys left side then kicks him on his right. Unless he's got size 38 feet he's not going to be able to reach the ball by kicking under his body.
 
I'm pretty sure they could. Ben Thatcher received a long ban for the Mendes incident even when the ref saw the incident and booked him.

I assumed so but sometimes the FA have some weird rule if the ref has seen it and punished it.

I'm looking forward to the daily mail headlines!
 
Yeah he was reaching over, realised it was under his body so tried to kick it out?

And by chance manages to get a full kick that goes right into his ribs and doesn't even touch the ground? Obviously, also, we can see under his body from this perspective, it wasn't anywhere near that side, his feet aren't long enough to go right to the other side.
 
14mvnzn.jpg


F0UASyo.jpg
 
Not denying that; but he wasn't intentionally kicking someone in the ribs like people are suggesting.

He was frustrated, did he intent to kick him in the ribs, probably not, did he kick the ball with the intention of letting the ball boy he was out of order, in my opinion yes.
 
And by chance manages to get a full kick that goes right into his ribs and doesn't even touch the ground? Obviously, also, we can see under his body from this perspective, it wasn't anywhere near that side, his feet aren't long enough to go right to the other side.

Well if the ball wasn't on either side, where else is it going to be? People are just trying to make something out of nothing.
 
First of all, I think that Hazard's trying to kick the ball from under the lad, not intentionally kick him. But if Hazard kicked him intentionally then he deserves whatever comes his way, at the same time I have no sympathy for the lad. He acted like a ****. Just because I don't care whether he got a bit of a kick, doesn't mean I go around beating children or would encourage others to do so.

The problem was that Hazard chose to kick the ball from under the ballboy.

The fact he didn't signal for another ball or just walk away and make the ballboy look like a time wasting fool, is his error tbh. There are other ways of getting the ball back or getting your point across without lashing out.

He didn't intentionally kick the ballboy, as he does get some of the ball, but the reality is he did make contact with him.

How hard or how much that contact he made is known only to the ballboy, but even still, the ref deemed it was violent conduct so there was only really one outcome.

This is not directed at you Baz, just a general point.
 
Back
Top Bottom