FA Charges Eden Hazard With Violent Conduct For Kicking Swansea Ball Boy

The Football Association has charged Chelsea midfielder Eden Hazard with violent conduct based on his actions during the Chelsea-Swansea League Cup semi-final where he kicked a Swansea City ball boy.

“It is alleged that Hazard’s behaviour in relation to a Swansea City ball boy, for which the player was dismissed in the 78th minute, constituted violent conduct whereby the standard punishment that would otherwise apply was clearly insufficient,” said a statement by The FA.”The player has until 6pm on Tuesday 29 January 2013 to respond to the charge.”

The FA also added a message to Swansea City and other clubs by saying that they “remind all clubs of their responsibilities in ensuring ball boys and other personnel around the pitch act in an appropriate manner at all times and will liaise with competitions accordingly.”

Depending on the final decision by The FA, Hazard could face more than the standard three match ban.

What do you think? Is the charge adequate, too lenient or too excessive? Share your opinions in the comments section below.

H/T to the USA Today for the irreverent image.

31 thoughts on “FA Charges Eden Hazard With Violent Conduct For Kicking Swansea Ball Boy”

  1. Five match ban. Bar the ‘ballboy’ from working any further matches as well. Hazard’s reaction is absurd but this kid was looking to put himself into the match which is a joke.

  2. The sending off plus the three match ban is already too
    much.It is quite clear Hazard didn’t kick the ball boy,who
    acted terrible as his tweet said hours before the game. If
    anything,Hazard should be getting an apology from Swansea.

  3. If the FA is trying to make a point to players they need to also address ball boys purposely returning the ball slowly and make a statement to the league with conditions attached.

    If the ball boy had done his job properly there wouldn’t be anything to talk about today and Chelsea would still have lost.

  4. I prefer this angle: http://i.minus.com/ibcN3plDZj7bbS.gif

    The ballboy, who happens to be the son of Swansea’s largest shareholder, gloated before the game he was going to waste time. He’ll be 18 later this year, was kicked by someone he could’ve been in high school with.

    Was Hazard right for doing this? Of course not, he deserved the card and the 3 match ban that came with it.

    What isn’t happening that should though, is Swansea facing some form of punishment. Nothing major, just some kind of fine, but SOMETHING. Otherwise, there’s going to be plenty of other conniving ballboys who want their 15 minutes of fame and will soon be getting it.

    Gaffer, I know you have your rose-tinted glasses on, and frankly I probably would as well if that happened at Goodison, but surely you can agree that something needs to be done further than some meaningless statement to make sure this doesn’t happen agian.

    1. Hazard is what? 4 years older than this guy only- in those terms- looks different doesn’t it a college senior vs a college freshman-
      He’s been punished, don’t reward the putz faux victim any more by performing for the cameras, any additional ban is posing. This wasn’t a child, the “victim” exaggerated his response and instigated the issue. Hazzard should be above that and was punished, the team was punished.

  5. 3 match ban is sufficient, given that Hazard primarily kicked at the ball. The real crime that needs to be addressed is the action of the ballboy. While you can’t realistically punish him, he was acting on behalf of Swansea FC at the time, so that club should be fined a substantial amount.

  6. He’s already been punished enough. The FA continue to be a joke. The entire episode is more humorous than scandalous. The ball boy deserved a good thrashing but Hazard couldn’t get off without being punished. The red and 3 match ban is plenty.

  7. Lets get one thing straight here, Hazard kicked a child. Was the near-adult blameless, was this a cut and dry assault, of course not. But none of this “well the kid deserved it” argument carries any merit. A professional athlete kicked a child.

    I think the FA needs to examine it in this light, what would they do if it was the same actions taken against another player. Clearly if the ball boy was a player Hazard would have been sent off. Clearly he would be getting an additional ban for the violent behavior. The FA then needs to decide if because the action was taken against a non-player, irrespective of any mitigating factors, whether or not an additional ban is also required. I’d say yes to both. Perhaps 2 more games.

    Actions like these MUST get judged on their principle, not their merit.

    1. lets get this straight odds are that spoiled private school brat has been punched much harder by his school mates- and probably celebrated the rukus he caused making it rain at the strip club where he could easily get in

    2. I agree and i think that is what the FA is doing with the extra action, unfortunately most of these posts are from people who don’t see the bigger picture.

      The boy doesn’t look like he is 17 does he, he looks younger… Hazard didn’t know he was 17 no one did when looking at him which is why his age had to clarified. anyways… His age is not the factor in all this it’s the action of Hazard… The fact he kicked the ball out isn’t the point, its the violent / agressive nature of the interaction and the fact that it wasn’t a footballing action on the field or play like a poor challenge.

      I don’t think anyone has disputed the fact the boy shouldn’t have done it, but hazard should know better… Full stop…

      Sky did a great piece showing other footballers pushing younger ball boys of 12, I think one was Cabaye this season. Being in the moment or the persons age isn’t good enough reason to be ok with a violent act. I think the FA are lookimg at the fact there have been 5 or 6 other incidents this season in all divisions.

  8. Typical FA. A bunch of morons. Instead of looking at both the cause and effect they only address the effect. It’s not as if the ball boy was totally innocent in this. The 3-match ban is warranted. Nothing more. If this was Rooney would they have acted similarly? I doubt it.

  9. Chelsea players racially abusing opposition, shooting acadamy players at training, kneeing opponents in the back, punching opponents in the kidneys when the refs not looking, kicking ball boys.

    Im sure if you look at the crowd throwing bottles on the pitch during the game, it will be the chelsea players in their millwall gear. LOL

  10. Has the FA ever done anything right? Why would they start now. Everyone knows that they are a joke as there is never any consistency in what they do.

  11. I know that due to copyright restrictions and such you can’t link to a decent video of the event, but I really don’t think that the animated image included at the head of this post really puts in to context what happened. I first read of what happened through this site and thought Hazard must have been off his head to kick a ball boy, but decided to reserve judgment until I saw the clip in context. When done so, it becomes a little less of a terrible sin by Hazard. Certainly he should have maintained his cool a little more, but I think it’s unfair to show this image of him just kicking the ballboy as a representation of what actually happened. Cheers.

    1. It’s a fair point Iain. Unfortunately, the archaic copyright laws restrict me from showing the clip from YouTube, which has been taken down by Sky Sports.

      The Gaffer

      1. No worries, Gaffer. I can only imagine what The Sun or the Daily Star are making it out to be by cherry picking a photo that paints Hazard in the worse possible light 😉

  12. Well, I’m just happy the FA didn’t suspend Suarez for what Hazard did.

    Honestly, what a stupid thing to happen, all around. Chelsea has 10+ minutes left, so there wasn’t a massive rush. And I have never seen a ball boy get involved when the ball was so close to a player. Swansea should be relegated to Division III. That’ll show them!

    1. But this is just about one person from Swansea. Why would you want an entire club to be relegated just because of the actions of one person? I don’t think that’s very reasonable. Plus, I’m sure other clubs have their fair share of this sort of people too, some perhaps even more.

  13. I like articles like this because anytime Gaffer calls someone out for being bias, I can easily reference him back to this article of his as a shining example of bias behavior.

  14. The age difference between Hazard and the ball boy is not much. Both acted stupid and immature, and Hazard should get a 3-4 game ban and the ball boy who is 17 (ball boy age limit is 16) should be out of a job.

    1. Yeah, the ball boy should no longer be a ball boy for that. I’ve never seen a ball boy take a “dive” before.

      The problem with Hazard is that you can’t kick a player or ref that is on the ground, forget a “civilian”. 3 to 4 games wouldn’t be enough. Oddly, Suarez gets 8 games for a tit for tat retort, but some player physically impacts a non-player, and they get 3 games?!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *