Football. Many people love it, lots of people hate it, some people are just indifferent towards it. However, misbehaviour on the pitch (alleged or otherwise) is likely to get the whole nation talking. Why? Because high profile matches are watched by thousands and covered by most of the major news and sports channels; everybody hears about what is alleged to have happened whether they are interested or not. And, for the most part, everyone has an opinion on it.
This week saw Swansea City play Chelsea. It was a scoreless draw, the ramifications being that Swansea City are through to the final following a 2-0 aggregate win. The game will be remembered for one reason and one reason only- the sending off of Eden Hazard after he 'appeared' to kick a ball boy. I have watched the footage from three different angles. I have no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, as to what happened. Let's not dwell on that though. Let us instead consider the undisputed facts.
1. The ball went out of play.
2. Mr Hazard went after it.
3. The ball boy also goes for the ball and there is some physical contact between Mr Hazard and the boy.
4. The ball boy goes to the floor, lying on top of the ball in the process.
5. Mr Hazard reaches down to the boy in order (it can be safely inferred) to retrieve the ball. He is unsuccessful.
6. Having failed to retrieve the ball (and whilst the ball boy is still lying on the ground with the ball underneath him) Mr Hazard lifts his right leg back and kicks in the direction of the underside of the ball boy.
7. The ball boy rolls over on to his back and Mr Hazard picks up the ball.
8. There then follows remonstrations from the ball boy who is still on the ground. Other players go over to him.
9. Mr Hazard is given a red card and off he goes.
Now, if one watches the footage, I would suggest that it is determinative of whether or not Mr Hazard's foot makes contact with the boy. I will let others make up their own mind.
The police have issued a statement to say that they have interviewed Master Morgan (the ball boy), in the presence of his father, and that no complaint has been made. Thus, no further action has been taken by the police. End of story. Or is it? No, is the short answer. We are now in the stage where the nation (perhaps that's a slight exaggeration) is debating the rights and wrongs of what is said (and seen) to have happened. I have noticed a great plethora of press reporting that goes along the lines of 'well the boy hasn't pressed charges, so that's the end of the matter'. No it isn't. In a case such as this, I would venture to suggest that the evidence of the boy is neither here nor there. The 'best evidence' comes from the television footage. Indeed, I would suggest that if Mr Hazard was charged with Common Assault (in its manifestation as a Battery), the Crown would not need the evidence of Master Morgan in order to secure a conviction. A Tribunal that was in an extremely generous mood may, for example, conclude that Mr Hazard did not intentionally assault Master Morgan, but nevertheless conclude that his actions in kicking out (which he undoubtedly did) whilst Master Morgan was lying on the floor constituted reckless behaviour on his part. It is difficult to envisage what the defence could possibly be if a charge was laid, other than "I did not make contact with him". At this point, I again refer readers to the footage.
Some of my colleagues have said that because there was no injury sustained and because the behaviour of the ball boy was itself questionable, there is no public interest in prosecuting the matter. I do not agree. We all know that thousands of Common Assaults are prosecuted each year where there was no injury sustained by the complainant/victim. I tend to agree that cases where the complainant is said to have been 'pushed' should not generally be before the courts (although they frequently are) but this was not a push. If Mr Hazard was convicted of an offence of Common Assault, there would be some serious aggravating features:
1. This was a kick;
2. There was a significant degree of force used (the footage shows Mr Hazard raise his foot back before effecting the kick)
3. The kick was intentional (unless you have a generous Tribunal who conclude it was reckless);
3. The victim was lying on the ground at the time;
4. The victim was only 17; and
5. The Defendant is a professional footballer, considered as a role model by many, and committed this offence in front of thousands of people.
Some argue that the conduct of the ball boy would provide strong mitigation. I'd be inclined to disagree. A professional footballer such as Mr Hazard should be able to control himself. If the ball boy was being obstructive, the matter was one for the officials to deal with, not Mr Hazard.
We wait to see whether or not the FA take action. They may well do so. According to the BBC, the police have received complaints from members of the public about the incident. It's unlikely that they will take action now though having issued the statement they did following the interview with Master Morgan. The public may have to settle for 'FA justice' instead.
