Eden Hazard

[Hkibou 622]

How can someone allege this a "violent conduct" ?

If i was Hazard i'd sue the FA for diffamation...

[Pizy 18,419]

Just like with the Terry situation. Actual legal bodies don't find him guilty but the all powerful FA feel the need to flex their muscle and charge him.

Police find absolutely no need to look into this incident, the clubs say they apologized to each other, THE KID HIMSELF SAID ITS NO BIG DEAL, yet the FA are gonna slap him with a huge ban. Incredible.

And since this is Chelsea FC, if we appeal nothing will happen.

[Stingray 9,441]

Longer match ban and a fine

Thanks for the info.

And ..... Fuck.

[Superblue 6,372]

He should be able to play against Brentford though as he has until Jan 29th to answer the charges.

[Weckerz 3,781]

As expected.

This game is dead.

[Rmpr 8,977]

I have been on the record I think Hazard was reckless and naive and I would have given him a yellow card and 1 match ban, but this is too much!

I cant help to feel sorry for the kid (the real kid). WTF FA???????????

[Hkibou 622]

Besides, this kind of decision by the FA is totally illogical... Doesn't do them any good, to the BPL either.

If i was a superstar in the making, when i see how the media and the FA are treating players ... I'd choose to go to Spain, Italy or Germany rather than having to face that much stupidity.

[mediator 2,026]

in case of 6 or 10 games ban, can't we send him on loan to another league until May? Lille maybe? or anywhere else just to say "fuck you" to the FA?

[Hkibou 622]

in case of 6 or 10 game ban, can't we send him on loan to another league until May? Lille maybe? or anywhere else just to say "fuck you" to the FA?

Lille of course. Where'd he go ?

[Pizy 18,419]

in case of 6 or 10 games ban, can't we send him on loan to another league until May? Lille maybe? or anywhere else just to say "fuck you" to the FA?

Didnt Barton still have to serve his huge ban when he went to France? Don't think that would work.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

How can someone allege this a "violent conduct" ?

If i was Hazard i'd sue the FA for diffamation...

Because the conduct was of a violent nature?

--

I really don't see how anyone's surprised by this or not even accepting of this. Hazard made a stupid decision, imo the punishment will fit the crime.

[Rmpr 8,977]

in case of 6 or 10 games ban, can't we send him on loan to another league until May? Lille maybe? or anywhere else just to say "fuck you" to the FA?

No, FA will say he wont have completed the ban and will have to do it once he returns.

Joey Barton anyone?

[Rmpr 8,977]

Because the conduct was of a violent nature?

--

I really don't see how anyone's surprised by this or not even accepting of this. Hazard made a stupid decision, imo the punishment will fit the crime.

Yes I agree he made a stupid decision (I have been discussing this over 3 days now), but isnt a 3 match ban enough???

[Weckerz 3,781]

Because the conduct was of a violent nature?

--

I really don't see how anyone's surprised by this or not even accepting of this. Hazard made a stupid decision, imo the punishment will fit the crime.

You don't see how anyone is surprised Hazard gets charged for toe-poeking the ball from under that 18 year old man lying on the ball? Sod off.

[SinineUltra 1,170]

3 match ban would have done the trick but instead he is being crucified. Swansea should be punished also. Call me paranoid but these kinds of things make me think the FA has a personal battle with Chelsea.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Yes I agree he made a stupid decision (I have been discussing this over 3 days now), but isnt a 3 match ban enough???

They're under pressure from a lot of sources to make that decision. I don't agree, but it is logical.

You don't see how anyone is surprised Hazard gets charged for toe-poeking the ball from under that 18 year old man lying on the ball? Sod off.

Because the boy isn't a professional footballer making ridiculous amount of money per week. He isn't part of the game, and even though he was wrong to be covering the ball, Hazard doesn't have the right to take matters into his own hands. He may have kicked the ball, but the nature of kicking it when the boy was on the ground equates to violent conduct.

[Weckerz 3,781]

Because the boy isn't a professional footballer making ridiculous amount of money per week. He isn't part of the game, and even though he was wrong to be covering the ball, Hazard doesn't have the right to take matters into his own hands. He may have kicked the ball, but the nature of kicking it when the boy was on the ground equates to violent conduct.

No the boy man drives around in an Audi, is about to inherit a fortune and denied 10-13yo kids who'd kill to be ball boy the chance to be there instead because dad is the director of Swansea. He said on twitter he was gonna waste time; how can you not see he's a spoiled brat who tricked Hazard to get into this situation? Are you daft?

And if you find that little poke to get the ball 'taking matters in to your own hands' .. well, let's just say you should probably find another sport to follow. Where are the days football was a man's game?

[LDN Blue 7,903]

No the boy man drives around in an Audi, is about to inherit a fortune and denied 10-13yo kids who'd kill to be ball boy the chance to be there instead because dad is the director of Swansea. He said on twitter he was gonna waste time; how can you not see he's a spoiled brat who tricked Hazard to get into this situation? Are you daft?

And if you find that little poke to get the ball 'taking matters in to your own hands' .. well, let's just say you should probably find another sport to follow. Where are the days football was a man's game?

Lol what? where did you hear all that?

Even though his intention was to entice Hazard into that situation it doesn't change the fact that Hazard allowed himself to get into that. The assistant referee should've been left to deal with it, not Hazard.