Europa League? where are you?

[Balthazars]

Happy Birthday Copper

What they said!

[copperhorse21]

much appreciated to everyone who wished me well. I appreciate the kind sentiments.

[tenthreeleader]

Happy belated, old man. And welcome back. You did win a couple of awards, by the way!

[tenthreeleader]

P.S. Eden Hazard will have some explaining to do. Even if the kid was playacting, what he did was inexcusable.

[Jibby123]

P.S. Eden Hazard will have some explaining to do. Even if the kid was playacting, what he did was inexcusable.

I hate everything Chelsea, and what Hazard did was inexcusable but hope they (press, FA, Chelsea fans to the lad....they have form with Anders Frisk) don't go OTT on this. They both did something stupid, both apologised to each other, no real harm done so hope everyone doesn't go too hard on them both. I won't hold my breath on that happening though.

[Offspring8]

P.S. Eden Hazard will have some explaining to do. Even if the kid was playacting, what he did was inexcusable.

I can see Hazard getting a ban and, upon reflection, he deserves it but action should be taken against Swansea as well in my opinion. If you look at the bare bones of it, their employee was essentially cheating to give his club a better chance of making it through to the final. Hazard isn't the only one in the wrong here.

Hazard has apologised, I hope somebody apologises on the kids behalf, the FA take their action and then everybody moves on.

[Jibby123]

If they are going to start punishing clubs for employee's cheating during a game then we are in for one fun ride I think.

The lad did apologise to Hazard according to Benitez in the press conference, he even went to the Chelsea dressing shook hands with Hazard, Terry and Lampard after the game so fair play to all (even any of the above wearing blue and that hurts to say ).

[tenthreeleader]

I agree, but you can't kick out at non-playing staff. It's not quite as bad as kicking out at a fan, and we know what happened to Eric Cantona when he did that, but it's close.

If the kid is time-wasting, the onus is on the Chelsea bench to make sure the referee adds that to added time. There were six minutes of it as it was in that match. Go for the ball, sure, but don't lay hands on the body and above all don't do anything that could be considered violent conduct.

Unfortunately for Hazard, this is what he'll be remembered for doing until he participates in a meaningful accomplishment for Chelsea.

[Offspring8]

I agree, but you can't kick out at non-playing staff. It's not quite as bad as kicking out at a fan, and we know what happened to Eric Cantona when he did that, but it's close.

If the kid is time-wasting, the onus is on the Chelsea bench to make sure the referee adds that to added time. There were six minutes of it as it was in that match. Go for the ball, sure, but don't lay hands on the body and above all don't do anything that could be considered violent conduct.

Unfortunately for Hazard, this is what he'll be remembered for doing until he participates in a meaningful accomplishment for Chelsea.

I agree that Hazard has been an idiot to react in the way he did, but I think it's important not to over-react. His kick is nowhere near as bad as the Cantona one - Hazard merely toe-poked the ball from underneath the idiot. Even if there was any contact, it was minimal.

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. Hazard should have left it to the referee to sort out but hey, Hazard is a human being, not a robot. If I lay on the ball in my Sunday league football matches in an attempt to time waste in a cup semi-final whilst my team is 2-0 up, I'm pretty sure I'd get properly kicked by just about every player on the pitch.

As I said, Hazard was completely wrong to react in that way and he deserves some form of ban, but both parties have apologised to each other and accepted that it was a completely silly situation. I just hope there's no over-reaction e.g 'HAZARD ASSAULTS INNOCENT CHILD'

[Balthazars]

I agree, but you can't kick out at non-playing staff. It's not quite as bad as kicking out at a fan, and we know what happened to Eric Cantona when he did that, but it's close.

If the kid is time-wasting, the onus is on the Chelsea bench to make sure the referee adds that to added time. There were six minutes of it as it was in that match. Go for the ball, sure, but don't lay hands on the body and above all don't do anything that could be considered violent conduct.

Unfortunately for Hazard, this is what he'll be remembered for doing until he participates in a meaningful accomplishment for Chelsea.

I'll disagree slightly in that in my opinion, kicking out at non-playing staff is the same as kicking out at a fan. Neither is an active participant in the sport or covered by the 'rules of the game'. It's like saying kicking the medico who runs onto the pitch is different to kicking a fan, I think the two are essentially the same.

I imagine that Hazard will be hit pretty hard by the FA. It is a terrible image for the sport even though the kid was asking for it and the kick was tame. It made front-page of The Age website here in Aus, a paper that normally doesn't give two hoots about football. There's also the fact that by going after a non-participant he opens himself up to external law and the circus that comes with that (not saying he'd actually be found guilty of anything, because he almost surely wouldn't), another thing the FA is not particularly fond of. Most likely he'll be hit with a hefty fine, an extension to his ban would be a tad harsh, but he would only have himself to blame - your second paragraph is completely spot on.

[Offspring8]

Read this on sky sports and it's pretty good news, none of the people actually involved have over-reacted. Now, the stage is set for the FA to come in and blow the situation completely up into the sky:

A Swansea spokesman said: "The police have interviewed the boy and his father and there are no charges going to be pressed, as far as they are concerned that is the matter closed.

"The ballboy has been into the Chelsea dressing room after the game and shaken hands with Eden Hazard. The likes of John Terry and Frank Lampard were exemplary in their behaviour in welcoming him into the dressing room.

"Chelsea asked if he could come in and our kit lady took him in and they shook hands, he is fine.

"As far as we are concerned the matter is closed. He has been a ballboy here for six years with no incidents here at the stadium."

[BenArsenal]

Given that both parties have said that they have apologised I doubt that there will be any further action taken.

On the football front, well done to Swansea and Bradford. Having either team in Europe next season will be interesting.

[tenthreeleader]

I agree that Hazard has been an idiot to react in the way he did, but I think it's important not to over-react. His kick is nowhere near as bad as the Cantona one - Hazard merely toe-poked the ball from underneath the idiot. Even if there was any contact, it was minimal.

That's not the point. It's something you just don't do. It's like drinking and driving when you're just a bit over the limit or a lot. It's equally wrong no matter how drunk you are.

But you're right in that people have done the right things and done them quickly. I think it's in everyone's best interests for the FA to say "okay, he kicked out, the red card was appropriate and we won't extend his ban" because of the reaction of all parties involved after it happened. He may well be fined and he should probably expect that too. He's the professional in the conversation.

Part of the game, though, is making decisions on the fly and in the heat of the moment. Hazard should know better and that's the lesson not only to him, but to all players, from all this.

[copperhorse21]

Happy belated, old man. And welcome back. You did win a couple of awards, by the way!

markwilson told me about that. Felt a bit weird all things considered. Possibly, from a metaphorical perspective, a bit like Bradford City making it to the League Cup finals; a bit unexpected when considering the competition.

[salkster2102]

I think it's a good thing The Perfect-Fm'er is no longer amongst us with his Villa rants as he would probably clog pages up with them at the moment. Such a shame to see a club of their size fall like they are doing. Something is terribly wrong there and I fear they are the next Leeds. The squad isn't good enough that is clear and has been declining ever since Martin O'Neill left. Personally I think it was quite convenient timing O'Neill left when he did. Whether there decline is just down to him leaving or something else, but it looks almost inevitable where they will end up.

[tenthreeleader]

I was just thinking about PFMer, after the Bradford Cup tie the other day. I'm thinking he's still unhappy, wherever he is.

As for me, though, I'm just happy to see Reading playing better.

[Offspring8]

It's looking like Hazard will get a 5+ game ban which is pretty hilarious for numerous reasons. You go, English FA. This whole thing got me thinking about time-wasting in football and I've read a few pieces on it over the last couple of days and the most interesting idea I've found out of it is shortening the length of football matches themselves and stopping the match clock whilst the ball is out of play.

At the end of the 2010/11 season, Guardian submitted a statistical season review which contained this little snippet:

At Premier League matches on average, the ball was in play for 62.39 minutes this season – more than in the much-vaunted Spanish and German top flights (61.48 minutes and 61.22 minutes respectively), but significantly less than in Serie A (65.15 minutes).

If the ideas I stated above were to be taken and implemented, you couldn't just take the idea of stopping the clock every time the ball went out of play. If you think about it, the current players are only used to playing for little over an hour, while the ball is out of play or dead for the remaining half-hour. If you're going to keep the ball in-play for a full 90 minutes, you'd effectively be making players play every match as if they'd gone to extra time in a cup tie, and everybody knows how tired teams are at the end of extra time. The fallout for that would be terrible; clubs would need to spend much more money as they'd need more players to cope with the schedule, which may mean clubs bump up their ticket prices to try and make up for the extra money spent so the fans would suffer, then there's also the increased risk of injuries to players.

However, if you also shortened matches to 65/70 minutes, that would solve all of the problems. Time wasting is gone, so there's no ballboys lying on footballs, no footballers holding the ball behind their back or kicking the ball away to waste time and no stalling whilst taking throw-ins because it wouldn't be wasting time as the clock would have stopped (in Hazards case, he could have just let the kid lay on the ball and laughed at him because it wouldn't be at the expense of playing time, ergo we would not have the current situation). It would stop managers tapping their watches at the referees towards the end of matches, saving the referees a bit of hassle and it would also stop the nutty 'x minutes of added time' at the end of matches which we all know is at best inaccurate.

I honestly don't see any cons to these plans; it would just improve things and it's not even slightly difficult to implement. But I'm probably being a bit of a free-thinker and waaayyyy too rational for the footballing world. I mean what would come next, goal line technology? Video replay?! Post-match fines for diving?!? It would be madness!! I'M DESTROYING FOOTBALL!

[Jibby123]

It's a good idea, but (and there's always a 'but' for me ) are we in danger of making football too sterile? Too bland? Too coldly clinical? Too 'everything correct'? I like the frustration/joy of manager's tapping their watch, the crazy "how many minutes added on? you have to be kidding me" and mad talking or debates at some of the things that happen during a game. It part what makes football what it is to me.

Will we one day see a game where each player and the ball is micro chipped so a computer can make every refereeing decision and never make a mistake? I hope not.

[Offspring8]

The idea isn't taking anything away from football other than time-wasting, which would be a good thing in my opinion if anything, it's maximising the amount of football we watch. Yeah, you like the drama when it goes in your favour, everybody does, but when your team is a goal down and your opponents are trying to waste as much time as possible, it's incredibly frustrating.

Just out of interest what are your views on diving, Jibby? Do you accept that it's a part of the modern game and enjoy the levels of drama it brings or would you like to see it pushed out of the game in some way (e.g post-match fines for diving)? And what about goal-line technology? I just find the argument of 'the added drama makes it better' a bit porous because all I see is 'allowing people/teams to cheat is okay because it gives us drama', but I openly accept that everybody has different views

[Jibby123]

The idea isn't taking anything away from football other than time-wasting, which would be a good thing in my opinion if anything, it's maximising the amount of football we watch. Yeah, you like the drama when it goes in your favour, everybody does, but when your team is a goal down and your opponents are trying to waste as much time as possible, it's incredibly frustrating.

Fair one on getting to see more football, but time-wasting is so minor now (compared to before the pass back rule!! GK rolls the ball to LB....who rolls it to CB....who rolls it to CB....who rolls it to RB....who rolls it back to GK....rinse and repeat as it once was....where the GK can feel free to jump back in that chain of passes as soon as any one of the defenders are approached by opposition....take note Italia!! ) and not so big a problem I'd like to see anything more changed. The idea in The Guardian I can see the benefits to, hands up admit, just not something I'd really like to see. Referee's seem quite able to deal with time-wasting within the laws of the game as it is now so would not like to see anything change too much.

Just out of interest what are your views on diving, Jibby? Do you accept that it's a part of the modern game and enjoy the levels of drama it brings or would you like to see it pushed out of the game in some way (e.g post-match fines for diving)? And what about goal-line technology? I just find the argument of 'the added drama makes it better' a bit porous because all I see is 'allowing people/teams to cheat is okay because it gives us drama', but I openly accept that everybody has different views

I detest diving. But that's cheating, not a referee making a mistake or debate as to whether a goal was offside or not, over the line or not or a foul or not. I'd like to see retropective punishments for diving or any cheating. But I don't want to see a sanitised version of football, zero errors kind of game that goal line tech might/would bring.

Controversy/drama good. Outright cheating bad.

That's just my view on the cuff though, can see your point, it's just how I feel personally.

[BenArsenal]

Offy, I can see a couple of holes in your argument.

Firstly, it would mean that matches will not have a definite fixed time. This will throw TV schedules into disarray.

Also, it will mess up games that needed to be ended simultaneously (e.g. title deciders)

Thirdly, and this is quite nit-picky and maybe a bit far-fetched, but I can see how teams use this to their advantage. If one team sees the other tiring out (perhaps in extreme weather, or they simply don't have the same level of fitness), they can prolong the game, and therefore wear down the exhausted opponent by time wasting. Hardly fair isn't it?

[Offspring8]

Fair enough Jibby, all of your points are pretty valid, it's a case of personal preference

Offy, I can see a couple of holes in your argument.

Firstly, it would mean that matches will not have a definite fixed time. This will throw TV schedules into disarray.

Not necessarily; matches would still take near enough 90 minutes. At the moment an average match has the ball in play for around 62 minutes and then it is either dead or out of play for the remaining 28 minutes. If the rules were applied, matches would take 65 minutes but you'd still have the odd 30 minutes wasted on waiting for corner kicks/throw-ins/injured players etc. so really it would be the same, give or take 10 minutes (which would juts add or take away from the post match analysis that most coverage includes). The only difference between my suggestion and the current rules is that with my suggestion, time wasted wouldn't cut into actual football time because the clock would stop.

Also, it will mess up games that needed to be ended simultaneously (e.g. title deciders)

No games strictly need to end simultaneously. If that was the case all games throughout the whole year would be played at the same time on the same days and would all be given the same amount of added time at the end of every match.

Thirdly, and this is quite nit-picky and maybe a bit far-fetched, but I can see how teams use this to their advantage. If one team sees the other tiring out (perhaps in extreme weather, or they simply don't have the same level of fitness), they can prolong the game, and therefore wear down the exhausted opponent by time wasting. Hardly fair isn't it?

How could they prolong the game? It's 65 minutes long and the clock stops when the ball goes out of play. Both teams would be playing in the same game; if one tires before the other then it's not because it's not fair, it's simply because one team has better collective stamina.

[copperhorse21]

90+ seems like a good time frame for me.

The average US Football match equates to something like 11 minutes of actual NFL football during the 4 quarters of 15 minutes of action. From a TV producer's perspective, it might make for more money in the game because they could potentially make modifications to include mini-commercials of 15-20 secs. I'm more annoyed by commercials than I am watching the antics of players attempting various forms of gamesmanship to catch rests here and there. Yes, how much can I stand watching players who are "undecided" as to who will take that throw-in in the middle of the field?

I've long been an advocate for goal-line technology and do believe that the officiating crew should be able to stop the game to review key penalties which can lead to vital scoring chances and injuries within the game. For me, the thought that 4 sets of eyes scattered over a pitch as large the Premierships' can spot fouls and driven shots for all 22 players is ludicrous. Heck, the NBA has three officials to cover less than 90' x 50' for only 10 players. They still make incredible mistakes. I feel the officials should be able to have the support of modern technology to make the right call on-site to prevent inaccurate results as well as God knows how many fights among supporters on the way home from matches.

Retrospective discipline is more than acceptable to me, particularly when you have players confessing after the fact they did whatever they could to get the results in their favor, whether that be diving or tackling or taunting. If sportsmanship is really important, then support it FA.

The only change in the modern game I don't quite understand is the 25 man roster rule. I wish someone could explain it to me because I'm uncertain as to whether it only applies to league matches OR does it also apply to National Tournaments and Continental Competitions? For me, if this includes all competitions in addition to league play, then this is horrendous because it seems to penalize teams who are eligible for multiple competitions, especially when it comes to league play.

[tenthreeleader]

(in Hazards case, he could have just let the kid lay on the ball and laughed at him because it wouldn't be at the expense of playing time, ergo we would not have the current situation).

We also wouldn't have the current situation if Hazard hadn't kicked out in the first place. Don't forget that.

Yes there was time wasting but as they say, it takes two to tango. I don't support any additional punishment, but the player didn't keep himself under control in the first place. That's hurt his team.

[BenArsenal]

No games strictly need to end simultaneously. If that was the case all games throughout the whole year would be played at the same time on the same days and would all be given the same amount of added time at the end of every match.

Of course not all games, but some (like World Cup group games) might need a simultaneous result.

How could they prolong the game? It's 65 minutes long and the clock stops when the ball goes out of play. Both teams would be playing in the same game; if one tires before the other then it's not because it's not fair, it's simply because one team has better collective stamina.

A supposed 'fitter' team, in perhaps extreme weather (again this is far-fetched) could theoretically extend a game to 120 minutes by continually booting the ball out of play and time wasting. The longer the 'less fit' team stays on the pitch, the more tired they become, playing to the advantage of the fitter team. This could perhaps see the end of giant-killing acts. Football thus becomes a game of fitness.

I'd have a variation of your idea though. Set a time limit for having the ball out of play. For example, throw ins must be taken within X number of seconds, same for goal kicks and etc. Violate that and a foul is given.

[Offspring8]

We also wouldn't have the current situation if Hazard hadn't kicked out in the first place. Don't forget that.

Yes there was time wasting but as they say, it takes two to tango. I don't support any additional punishment, but the player didn't keep himself under control in the first place. That's hurt his team.

Well we agree about the additional punishment thing then. My opinion is he was wrong to try and do what he did, but so was the ballboy and Eden Hazard didn't touch him (or if he did, it was the slightest of touches that didn't hurt at all and he certainly didn't mean to touch him). The ballboy went out of his way to get involved and cause a fuss and this has all happened. I would support an additonal ban if Hazard had gone out of his way and deliberately kicked a ball boy for no reason other than being frustrated, absolutely. If that was the case, I'd expect a ban much like the one Cantona was given. However that didn't happen and as such, Hazard should have just been left with the 3 match ban. I just like laughing at the FA because Hazard and the kid have had a chat and left it behind, Swansea as a club have left it behind and called for Hazard not to be punished any further than he already has with the red card, yet the FA want to be seen as 'important' so they have thrust themselves into the situation. It's laughable to say the least.

Of course not all games, but some (like World Cup group games) might need a simultaneous result.

I can certainly see where you're coming from, but I'm sure that you could see if a team was trying to use this sort of thing to its advantage and could therefor retrospectively punish them by booting them from the tournament and banning them from future competitions, or by doing something along those lines.

A supposed 'fitter' team, in perhaps extreme weather (again this is far-fetched) could theoretically extend a game to 120 minutes by continually booting the ball out of play and time wasting. The longer the 'less fit' team stays on the pitch, the more tired they become, playing to the advantage of the fitter team. This could perhaps see the end of giant-killing acts. Football thus becomes a game of fitness.

I'd have a variation of your idea though. Set a time limit for having the ball out of play. For example, throw ins must be taken within X number of seconds, same for goal kicks and etc. Violate that and a foul is given.

But even if that did happen, players use hardly any energy while the ball is dead anyway and if a fitter team continuously booted the ball out of play against my not-so-fit team, I'd be encouraging them because it gives me more time to get my breath back. I mean you're not going to get tired by standing around waiting for somebody to take a throw in, are you? No matter how long the actual match lasts, they would still only be playing 65 minutes of actual football. Surely the best way to wear down an unfit team is to keep the ball from them and pass it around, forcing them to chase you around the pitch?

I think your time limit idea could be good if needed. I mean they have that sort of rule now anyway for goalkeepers and how long they can hold the ball so I guess they could extend that to players if they needed to.

[Offspring8]

Sorry for the double post, I seem to be taking up most of this thread and I apologise but I just want to show everybody how Rafa Benitez continues to alienate the Chelsea fans. Read the quote at the top of this article. Is Rafa just a troll? Because if so, he's hilarious.

http://www.weaintgotnohistory.com/2013/1/26/3919542/shut-up-rafa

[Jibby123]

Well we agree about the additional punishment thing then. My opinion is he was wrong to try and do what he did, but so was the ballboy and Eden Hazard didn't touch him (or if he did, it was the slightest of touches that didn't hurt at all and he certainly didn't mean to touch him). The ballboy went out of his way to get involved and cause a fuss and this has all happened. I would support an additonal ban if Hazard had gone out of his way and deliberately kicked a ball boy for no reason other than being frustrated, absolutely. If that was the case, I'd expect a ban much like the one Cantona was given. However that didn't happen and as such, Hazard should have just been left with the 3 match ban. I just like laughing at the FA because Hazard and the kid have had a chat and left it behind, Swansea as a club have left it behind and called for Hazard not to be punished any further than he already has with the red card, yet the FA want to be seen as 'important' so they have thrust themselves into the situation. It's laughable to say the least....

They mentioned something interesting this morning on "The Sunday Supplement" on sky sports (yeah, yeah I know it's football journalists talking football ), where that there is almost an understanding with the police that assaults etc that happen on the field are left to the FA deal with (to a point obviously ) but when a player crosses that line and assaults a non-player then it gets more legal so the FA have to be seen to take it seriously in giving out punishments, otherwise the police will?

I realise it's probably journo talk, but they might have a point? Though the assault was a nothing tap, it was assault at the end of the day in front of millions/1000s of people and the victim was a non-player and a minor.

I remember boxing in the UK in the 90s where I 'heard' that the government of the day were saying to boxing authorities "sort your sport out, or we will" after they had the Benn/McClellan and Eubank/Watson fights where fighters were beaten in to coma's/half dead and left with serious, crippling life-changing injuries....so maybe there is a bit of that afoot if the FA are having to be seen to pile on a few more games for Hazard?

[Offspring8]

snip

I would be hesitant to pay any attention to it. If somebody breaks the law, the police have to deal with it, it's as simple as that. They wouldn't let an assault pass by because they believed the FA would take care of it instead, that would be ridiculous. Look at the John Terry racism case: both the police and the FA got involved. So yeah, I wouldn't pay much attention to those journalists, I highly doubt that's true. If Hazard broke the law, he'd be punished by the law.

[Jibby123]

You're probably right, journo's, but assaults on football pitches have been ignored, and taking rugby as an example you get quite serious punches thrown, eye gouging etc and the police seem very reluctant to prosecute, or get involved. And you don't necessarily need the victim to make a complaint for them to get involved.

[Offspring8]

I'm not sure but that would be my guess. Balthazars is probably the most knowledgeable person on this subject as I believe he knows a fair bit about the law. I would have thought that the victim would need to make a complaint for it to be taken up, but like I said I'm really not sure.

[copperhorse21]

Apropos of nothing: My Mark Wilson career save status is officially rated "I am now a Worldwide Soccer Manager expert." WOO HOO! I cannot think of of many things better than this for my "addictedness rating" (other than maybe the story that might come along with it...)! Spoiler alert...Derby loses 0-1 at home to Spurs on 30 Sep 2029.

[Balthazars]

I would be hesitant to pay any attention to it. If somebody breaks the law, the police have to deal with it, it's as simple as that. They wouldn't let an assault pass by because they believed the FA would take care of it instead, that would be ridiculous. Look at the John Terry racism case: both the police and the FA got involved. So yeah, I wouldn't pay much attention to those journalists, I highly doubt that's true. If Hazard broke the law, he'd be punished by the law.

Offy, I think you overestimate my legal knowledge! I studied law here in Aus, and the law is very similar to over in the UK (as we're your colony after all) which is where I make most of my analysis from. I'm largely relying on the assumption that UK law = Aus law.

Regarding police involvement in the discussion with Jibby - generally speaking, the reason why it is very rare to see the police become involved in incidents between professional players is because when you step out onto the football pitch you are actually implicitly consenting to the possibility of suffering personal harm due to the nature of the game. All sports involve a degree of risk, you could get hit, land awkwardly and break an arm/leg. Outside of the football pitch that would probably be enough for an assault charge, but on it, you consented to the possibility of something like this happening. With really violent behaviour it becomes a bit more tricky, but generally police stay away from this kind of stuff is because it becomes hard to prove that the harm was 'appreciably more than what is covered by the implicit consent'.

So generally it's a case that the police recognises that between fellow professionals, there is consent to physical contact that may cause harm, up to a certain extent. The police however do not want to define the boundary of that extent, and instead leave it to the professional body. Basically I thus consider incidents between professionals to be governed under 'the rules of the game', something that both players have consented to by entering onto the football pitch - they're essentially giving up their right to charge the other guy with criminal/civil offences and leave it to the governing body to decide.

That's the reason why I'm not surprised that the FA is going after Hazard, despite the very tame nature of his incident. The issue is that the ball-boy is not a fellow professional, and thus he has not consented to any physical contact that may cause harm. It's the same as any other volunteer or paid staff at a football match who is not a professional on the pitch. They don't consent to any physical contact that may cause harm, because they don't expect physical contact to be a part of their job description. Therefore, by having a go at the ball-boy, Hazard opened himself up to the possibility of being charged outside of the rules of the game, simply because the rules of the game can't govern his relationship with the ball-boy, meaning the law of the land is the only thing left to govern their relationship, and the law of the land is a lot more strict regarding non-consensual physical contact. (In contrast, as some discussed earlier, if he had done that to a fellow player, this would be a non-issue. He still might have gotten sent off, but that really would be the end of it).

The FA here is not concerned with the severity of Hazard's conduct from the perspective of breaking the law however, if that were the problem there is no case to answer here, as Hazard has no case to answer under the law (given the ball-boy is sensible enough to not press charges, even if he did, given there was next to no harm done, and a degree of 'joint responsibility' given the kid's antics, any penalty would be extremely minor).

The FA is most likely going after Hazard under the 'bringing the game into disrepute' rules that govern Hazard himself as a professional playing in the English leagues (again, something he essentially consents to by signing as a player for an English club and being registered to play in England). The FA will not have liked this situation at all, it's nothing but bad press for the game (as I noted, this even made news in Australia where the mainstream media doesn't care about football at all). They will hate the idea that players could be doing stuff that will land them in the courts, where the FA cannot control the outcome at all, as opposed to stuff happening within the 'rules of the game' that they can control completely. Hence, I expect Hazard will be punished further, not because what he did was particularly heinous, but simply because what he did is a really bad look for the FA and they will want to try and stamp down on that (which is sort of fair enough, it is a really bad look for the game). Realistically, it should just be a fine, but the FA are pretty stupid so I could see them trying to ban him for longer too.

[Jibby123]

Ah right, fascinating and makes sense Balthazars. Thanks.

[salkster2102]

Hmm this may seem out of context but I think legal action from what has happened on a football pitch. There have been incidents when a player has managed to sue a football club for receiving career ending injuries. The example i'll use is one the non league fans amongst will know about: the Markus Hallows court case against Ashton United that ended his career at 30. If the rumoured figures were true that he was liable to receive, then that would severely cripple that football club. Here is the link to it http://sixtamesides.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/marcus-hallows-vs-ashton-uniteddanny.html Rather different from the Hazard case but linked with legal action away from football.

So generally it's a case that the police recognises that between fellow professionals, there is consent to physical contact that may cause harm, up to a certain extent. The police however do not want to define the boundary of that extent, and instead leave it to the professional body. Basically I thus consider incidents between professionals to be governed under 'the rules of the game', something that both players have consented to by entering onto the football pitch - they're essentially giving up their right to charge the other guy with criminal/civil offences and leave it to the governing body to decide.

Going on my example does this not apply then Balth? I know you said "to a certain extent" but is that what you meant or just plain coincidence?

[chesterfan2]

Transfer deadline day.

Harry Redknapp interviewed through a car window.

I claim my spotters badge.

[gavrenwick]

I do hate him, Redknapp. Samba for £12.5m? I think that is an extremely steep fee.

[Jibby123]

Seems BBC are reporting that Hazard is only to get the standard 3 matches banned for straight red - violent conduct. No extension of games banned.

Surprised to be honest, but if they only gave John Terry 4 matches for Anton Ferdinand incident you could hardly say what Hazard did was equal or worse than Terry's....

[Manxie_Ash]

I do hate him, Redknapp. Samba for £12.5m? I think that is an extremely steep fee.

It's reported he'll be on £100k a week as well, Leeds United spring to mind.

Seems BBC are reporting that Hazard is only to get the standard 3 matches banned for straight red - violent conduct. No extension of games banned.

Surprised to be honest, but if they only gave John Terry 4 matches for Anton Ferdinand incident you could hardly say what Hazard did was equal or worse than Terry's....

The whole thing has been handled really well I think, the only people that have made a huge fuss over it is the media and the internet. All parties apologised to each other, and I am actually quite glad that the F.A haven't gone overboard to "set an example"

In other news Becks will donate his salary to a local childrens charity for the five months he's signed at PSG. The man is a legend.

[gavrenwick]

It's reported he'll be on £100k a week as well, Leeds United spring to mind.

I won't shed a tear if it happens again. Silly money. Unless he of course scores nine hat tricks. Then I'll retract my statement.

[Jibby123]

....The whole thing has been handled really well I think, the only people that have made a huge fuss over it is the media and the internet. All parties apologised to each other, and I am actually quite glad that the F.A haven't gone overboard to "set an example"

In other news Becks will donate his salary to a local childrens charity for the five months he's signed at PSG. The man is a legend.

Yeah, fully agree on the Hazard thing tbh.

And definitely agree on Beckham. England is probably the team I've supported most, travelled alot in the 90s/00s to watch as well, and for all the hoopla around the guy he was the one England player who seemed to care most about England and the fans tbf. I never understood the haters on him. He's a class act and always gave 100% no matter what, even with the modelling, PR and his missus giving him a media circus maybe his pure ability might not have got. Always got the impression the football mattered most and more than any of that fluff.

Classy touch donating, sure he won't miss the money, but he doesn't have to do the donation, does he? Few would. But to me he was always class act.

[Balthazars]

Hmm this may seem out of context but I think legal action from what has happened on a football pitch. There have been incidents when a player has managed to sue a football club for receiving career ending injuries. The example i'll use is one the non league fans amongst will know about: the Markus Hallows court case against Ashton United that ended his career at 30. If the rumoured figures were true that he was liable to receive, then that would severely cripple that football club. Here is the link to it http://sixtamesides.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/marcus-hallows-vs-ashton-uniteddanny.html Rather different from the Hazard case but linked with legal action away from football.

Going on my example does this not apply then Balth? I know you said "to a certain extent" but is that what you meant or just plain coincidence?

Hmmm, interesting little read. Only had time to skim but the opening line about it opening up a can of worms is very true!

That case is pretty much bang on that 'grey area' that I was talking about. Football is technically a non-contact sport (i.e. in order to win possession you can only tackle the ball, not the man - contrast to Rugby or Aussie Rules, where to win possession you are allowed to tackle the man with the ball) so that would suggest that the physical contact consented to, and thus the extent of harm that might eventuate, is potentially lower in Football than it is in those other variants.

In the event of a court having to decide on this, I believe the test is "injuries that one would consider a reasonable risk of occurring while partaking in the sport", or something along those lines. There's a case like that here in Aus as well that I remember studying briefly but it escapes me at the moment. Anyway, the issue here then is where the injuries suffered 'reasonable'. That is a masssssssive can of worms because determining 'reasonableness' in regards to 'injuries suffered while playing football' isn't something particularly clear-cut.

Sure you have solid extremes which are easy enough to decide on: if a guy grabs you and smashes your face into the goalpost, or deliberately kicks you in the chest and caves your ribs in that's obvious no player would consider that kind of injury something they would reasonably consent to happening in the game. In contrast, if two players run for the ball and knock their noggins together that's probably acceptable. The grey area comes with injuries occurring from tackles. Technically a tackle that proves to be a red-card offence is 'outside of the rules of the game', but you can argue players consent to the fact that they're going to be the victim of a red-card tackle, and thus possibly get injured, as a reasonable risk of playing the game.

However, do you consent to a red-card offence that kills your career or puts your life at risk? Much more tricky to answer. Some would say 'yes', some would say 'no'. The court in that case obviously said 'no', but it's even more murky because in that case, it wasn't even a red-card offence (because red-card offence tackles aren't clear either)! In that case, it's a question of "do you consent to be injured due to the actions of another professional, regardless of whether that action was legal/illegal under the laws of the game?"

Sound like a ridiculously hard question to answer? It should, because it is!

The court in the case you're talking about has basically answered that question as a 'no'. It seems unlikely that it would be a blanket no (i.e. you can never consent to any injury at all) as that would be ridiculous, but if it's a 'qualified no' the question is then "what extent of injury do you consent to?". Also a ridiculously hard question to answer.

The threshold the court has landed on appears to be 'career ending', but it's a slippery slope and not well tested. The author of the blog is right, the precedent here is dangerous. If the court says "no consent to career ending injuries, regardless of whether legal/illegal under the rules of the game" the opening is there for someone to challenge and say "what about no consent to injuries resulting in 12 months out" or "what about no consent to injuries that make me miss critical games" or "what about no consent to injuries that made me get transferred by my club, reducing my salary"

It sounds crazy, but all are potential follow-on arguments before the court if this precedent stands. I'm sure you can see why clubs and the FA would hate something like this to gain momentum. It would throw so much uncertainty into the game, which is why I believe usually these kinds of cases are rare. Very interesting to see that this guy was successful though!

PS: sorry, that's a complete ramble. Hope it makes sense.

[Balthazars]

Also, I'm amazed to read that Arsenal signed a player! What the heck happened? Anyone watch Malaga much and know anything about him though?

[BenArsenal]

Also, I'm amazed to read that Arsenal signed a player! What the heck happened? Anyone watch Malaga much and know anything about him though?

I've not watched Malaga, but I understand that he has played a bit for Spain. Which I suppose should make it alright.

[gavrenwick]

For where I work, we have annual awards for each of the three counters in the shop, and one for manager.

I was a definite for my area, excelling in everything for the past year and earning a lot of money. They labelled the award "Sheffield Team of the Year".

It's the equivalent of Barcelona winning Player of the Year. I'm not happy.

[mark wilson27]

What to do...Now my new laptop is up and running...do I do normal fm save story or sign up?

[tenthreeleader]

Surprise us.

[Manxie_Ash]

What happened to the "We can be Heroes" save? Or did I miss something completely?

[mark wilson27]

What happened to the "We can be Heroes" save? Or did I miss something completely?

my old laptop basically died and I lost everything on it.......wouldn't even load up the start screen or anything.

Just got a new laptop so the story ended...luckily I had all my other stories completed as saves and there all on my dropbox account and on a USB.

[tenthreeleader]

In your next signup, I wanna be a striker.