Thats a serious rambling there. What is the crime exactly you are referring to? He did not hit anyone. I do not accept this. It is simply bullshit. When ethics are concerned, this is my field. Sorry to bring this up but I used teach this at the local university. You can condone people because of a number of reasons: 1. Deontological: did he break an a actual rule - moral or legal. Actually no, when you see the footage. Is there a deontological code broken in his action. No, there is no stipulation of this fact. Consider what Cantona would be liable for in this case .... 2. Consequentionalism: Is there damage done, in hindsight. No. There is nothing there. 3. Virtue ethics: is Hazard someone who promotes the wrong values, does he do stuff that make football look bad. The proof of the pudding is in the eating here: nobody seems to think so, even our opponents. The only value that is being promoted here is that it is actually ok to have ball boys have an effect on the game. Not to even mention the fact of the twitter account or the fact that the ball boysfather has a serious interest in Swansea's performance. 4. Utilitarian (think Jeremy Bentham): what kind of 'utlity ' or good did Hazard prevent from being the case. None. We lost, even with Hazards action. Conclusion: all the debate is an emotional debate (Richard Hare if people wanna know/research). It is about what we feel, especially the FA. Not about the question at hand. I am seriously disgusted because of the intellectuall stupidity of what i going on... Also and in addition: an argument that involves our 'pr' or our image is the worst. This is merely big brother level and deserves to be burned , nothing more. Fuck off FA. I will love Chelsea forever. Period.