Eden Hazard

[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!

[Rmpr 8,977]

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

Then you doubt it wrong, every public figure gets money from sponsors that want them to inspire the consumers.

Just ask Armstrong...

[Yeboii 1,844]

Then you doubt it wrong, every public figure gets money from sponsors that want them to inspire the consumers.

Just ask Armstrong...

Not from the club, but from sponsors, that is correct. He is paid to do whatever it needs to legally win every game and he tried, I think he really has a passion for winning and the ball boy just got in the way. Meh whatever, we all know he did nothing to the 17 year old "boy" and he got charged.

[Mufassir08 2,400]

FA is an absolute joke.

FA=Fucking assholes!!!!!!!!!!!

[TacticalBlues 2,817]

The same association that had the balls to refer this:

3 games is "clearly insufficient" here though:

[zolayes 14,489]

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

well Torres is safe then

[bushman 2,043]

To be charges for violent conduct by FA is not a trivial matter, I feel.

I hate to say this but be prepared to see Hazard banned for 6 - 8 games.

[Yeboii 1,844]

The same association that had the balls to refer this:

3 games is "clearly insufficient" here though:

LOVE THIS POST

[Superblue 6,372]

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

No his ban hasn't been decided yet and he'll be given the opportunity to answer the charge and/or appeal before it applies.

Same happened to JT in racism ban, he coiuld play until the date he had to answer the charges.

[Jase 43,479]

No his ban hasn't been decided yet and he'll be given the opportunity to answer the charge and/or appeal before it applies.

Same happened to JT in racism ban, he coiuld play until the date he had to answer the charges.

No. There's a slight difference. Hazard received a red card for this while Terry didn't for his case. This charge is not about the red card/3-match ban, it's about the possibility of extending it further. So, right now, Hazard will serve the 3-match ban starting from this Sunday no matter what. Remains to be seen whether he will serve more than a 3-match ban(likely to).

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

FA (AF) hates Chelsea

[laura90 556]

Why Eden didn't just elbow him while he was still standing? Kick him not just the ball. Maybe punishment would be more appropriate in that case.

The English FA is a dirty and filthy bunch.

They sure enjoy the huge amount collected from Chelsea players as fines for every little incident. Feck! Hazard can only be subjected to further blame and punishment by a very biased opinion.

I didnt rule out the FA sticking out their ugly heads on Hazard , but its kinda surprising given that the there is naked for all to see.

Its so annoying that those who are suppose to look into pricks tweet have decided to turn their blind eyes because its Chelsea. They were busy keeping an eye on Ashleys tweets I suppose. The ball boy got thumbs up for his actions.

There is no reson to be suprised, the English Fa is run by the Manures. What a joke!

[teignman 441]

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 teach this at the 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 beng the case. None. We lost, even with acions. Conclusion: all the debate is an emotivism 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.

I just wish I could hit the "like this" button more than once after reading your post. It's writing like this that truly enriches this forum: intelligent, relevant, and passionate. Well done sir.