Eden Hazard

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Major doubts? Might wanna actually read the thread you're posting in mate, it's filled with links and information.

Again, it's not the point. The point is Hazard's conduct.

[Hamilton 2,120]

It's a disgrace..

[LDN Blue 7,903]

the F A and logic in the same sentence .... you must be a genius...or their spin doctor

okay fair comeback

[Milan 17,955]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2267779/Eden-Hazard-kicks-Swansea-ball-boy-game--play-here.html

[Rmpr 8,977]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2267779/Eden-Hazard-kicks-Swansea-ball-boy-game--play-here.html

FUUUCK, GOT A RED CARD!!!

[Jase 43,479]

Considering it's the FA, hardly a surprise that Hazard has been charged. They are completely blowing this out of proportion!

Elsewhere...

Sam Wallace ‏@SamWallaceIndy

One less thing for Eden Hazard to worry about: South Wales police say they will not be pursuing investigation into ball-boy incident

[Slam Dunk 1,442]

Going to be banned for kicking a football. Hilarious...

[DONI. 1,291]

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

No he can't,beacuse he has a 3 match ban beacuse of red card

[Hamilton 2,120]

At least 75% of footballing world support Hazard over this..

[Yeboii 1,844]

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

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.

Who the fuck gives a shit about his money? If he was poor would it be ok? I just don't get if people are rich how everyone is allowed to say what they want about them and they may never do things normal people do.

[Rmpr 8,977]

Who the fuck gives a shit about his money? If he was poor would it be ok? I just don't get if people are rich how everyone is allowed to say what they want about them and they may never do things normal people do.

Not what he was trying to say. He said he gains a lot of money to help CFC and to be a role model and that was not what he did. he ended up doing more harm than good...

I am not judging, just trying to clarify what he meant!

[Weckerz 3,781]

Again, it's not the point. The point is Hazard's conduct.

Sigh. That's exactly the point, he didn't misbehave. I assume the unwarranted red card makes you say he did.

[Stingray 9,441]

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.

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.

[Yeboii 1,844]

Not what he was trying to say. He said he gains a lot of money to help CFC and to be a role model and that was not what he did. he ended up doing more harm than good...

I am not judging, just trying to clarify what he meant!

I doubt he gets money for being a role model...

[Jase 43,479]

At least 75% of footballing world support Hazard over this..

What's the point? So many already backed Hazard before this and the FA still wants to punish him.

The way he went about getting the ball may not have been pretty but a 3-match ban would have been sufficed FFS!