FA view on the Ballboy incident

[Baboo]

No, it wasn't a mass murder, but come on - if your child were a ballboy and one of the players shoved and kicked him, you'd be perfectly ok with that?

Lesson in life son. You asked for it by winding him up. Back to the good old days when a copper could clip a kid around the ear and say cut it out or I'll tell your parents. Much more respect for your elders in them times me thinks. Less swearing in schools. Etc etc.

[Beach Road End]

My kid is now grown up. Hardly much force involved. A big storm in a tea cup. Amazing how some things get blown up out of all proportion. What injuries has this lad suffered. None.

Assault isn't about injury. It is about inappropriate use of force or aggression or causing someone to fear inappropriate force or aggression. As I've said before, assault doesn't even need physical contact to be an offence. Use of threatening or abusive language also be assault.

Where there is intentional physical contact, the crime is assault and battery.

Where there is injury, the crime is assault and battery causing actual bodily harm.

This case has not been blown up out of proportion. There appear to be some who believe that physical aggression towards a child is acceptable. It isn't. Not ever. We don't live in Dickensian times any more thankfully and there are plenty of good reasons why.

If it was my lad I'd have given him a clip round the ear for being a dickhead and said you deserved what you got and I hope you've learnt from it.
The people who think wrestling a ball off a teenager should be classed as an unprovoked assault are living in some national accident helpline dream world. This is football, grow up.

[GodalmingYellow]

My kid is now grown up. Hardly much force involved. A big storm in a tea cup. Amazing how some things get blown up out of all proportion. What injuries has this lad suffered. None.

Assault isn't about injury. It is about inappropriate use of force or aggression or causing someone to fear inappropriate force or aggression. As I've said before, assault doesn't even need physical contact to be an offence. Use of threatening or abusive language also be assault.

Where there is intentional physical contact, the crime is assault and battery.

Where there is injury, the crime is assault and battery causing actual bodily harm.

This case has not been blown up out of proportion. There appear to be some who believe that physical aggression towards a child is acceptable. It isn't. Not ever. We don't live in Dickensian times any more thankfully and there are plenty of good reasons why.

If it was my lad I'd have given him a clip round the ear for being a dickhead and said you deserved what you got and I hope you've learnt from it.
The people who think wrestling a ball off a teenager should be classed as an unprovoked assault are living in some national accident helpline dream world. This is football, grow up.

Well that speaks volumes about you and the sort of society you want to live in.

Meanwhile the vast majority of us, including the law makers of this country, believe in a civilised society where using force and aggression, particularly against a child, to get your own way isn't acceptable.

Only the unintelligent find difficulty in resolving issues without recourse to force.

[GodalmingYellow]

No, it wasn't a mass murder, but come on - if your child were a ballboy and one of the players shoved and kicked him, you'd be perfectly ok with that?

Lesson in life son. You asked for it by winding him up. Back to the good old days when a copper could clip a kid around the ear and say cut it out or I'll tell your parents. Much more respect for your elders in them times me thinks. Less swearing in schools. Etc etc.

&quotYou asked for it&quot? Really?

So the bloke in the pub who glasses someone next to him uses a defence of &quotHe asked for it because he spilled my pint and he wound me up&quot

The violent father uses the defence &quotHe asked for it because he wouldn't shut up when I was trying to watch Top gear and it wound me up&quot

The hoolies who beat up opposition fans use the argument &quotThey asked for it because they sang songs about my team and wound me up&quot

It is incredibly thin ice on which you tread there Baboo.

[Baboo]

No, it wasn't a mass murder, but come on - if your child were a ballboy and one of the players shoved and kicked him, you'd be perfectly ok with that?

Lesson in life son. You asked for it by winding him up. Back to the good old days when a copper could clip a kid around the ear and say cut it out or I'll tell your parents. Much more respect for your elders in them times me thinks. Less swearing in schools. Etc etc.

&quotYou asked for it&quot? Really?

So the bloke in the pub who glasses someone next to him uses a defence of &quotHe asked for it because he spilled my pint and he wound me up&quot

The violent father uses the defence &quotHe asked for it because he wouldn't shut up when I was trying to watch Top gear and it wound me up&quot

The hoolies who beat up opposition fans use the argument &quotThey asked for it because they sang songs about my team and wound me up&quot

It is incredibly thin ice on which you tread there Baboo.

Terry I think you are being absolutely ridiculous. To compare a glassing in a pub to a player wrestling a ball from a ball boy is stretching things rather don't you think.

And who are this vast majority you keep talking about. Certainly not pottersrightboot, Hog, Beachroad End. Almost certainly not Slappy, Paul Cooper &amp NW43. Myles perhaps?

[Ancient Colin]

Not me, either. Mountains, molehills.

[GodalmingYellow]

Lesson in life son. You asked for it by winding him up. Back to the good old days when a copper could clip a kid around the ear and say cut it out or I'll tell your parents. Much more respect for your elders in them times me thinks. Less swearing in schools. Etc etc.

&quotYou asked for it&quot? Really?

So the bloke in the pub who glasses someone next to him uses a defence of &quotHe asked for it because he spilled my pint and he wound me up&quot

The violent father uses the defence &quotHe asked for it because he wouldn't shut up when I was trying to watch Top gear and it wound me up&quot

The hoolies who beat up opposition fans use the argument &quotThey asked for it because they sang songs about my team and wound me up&quot

It is incredibly thin ice on which you tread there Baboo.

Terry I think you are being absolutely ridiculous. To compare a glassing in a pub to a player wrestling a ball from a ball boy is stretching things rather don't you think.

And who are this vast majority you keep talking about. Certainly not pottersrightboot, Hog, Beachroad End. Almost certainly not Slappy, Paul Cooper &amp NW43. Myles perhaps?

The vast majority don't contribute to this forum unless I've missed tens of millions posters. Yet the law is as identified earlier in this thread. So the vast majority including the law makers are not on your side.

Ritchie did not wrestle the ball from a ball boy as you put it. He assaulted and battered a ballboy comitting a criminal offence in the process.

We are not in disagreement about the lack of severity of Ritchie's actions.

In raising the examples, the point was not to give them equal measure with Ritchie's actions because clearly pushing someone is not the same as glassing someone. The point was to point out that there is a dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and by giving people a get out clause of &quotHe wound me up therefore it was alright&quot is nowhere near suffiicient justification for commiting a criminal offence, yet that is a defence oft used by criminals in the courts.

Some time ago, we had a long argument on here about speed cameras. I hate speed cameras and everything they stand for. It is very interesting to see one or two who then found it acceptable to potentially have someone forced to go to court to lose their driving license and possibly their job and a large amount of money, for very minor transgressions of speeding that have affected no one, but now find it acceptable for a grown man to assault and batter a child in public. I find that a bizarre set of values indeed.

Having been avictim of assault and battery and actual bodily harm as both an adult and a child, and having faced losing my driving license in the manner suggested, I know which I find to be the more serious offence and I know which had far more of an effect on a victim.

[Ancient Colin]

I suspect that for many of us, the description of the event as &quota grown man .. assaulting and battering a child in public&quot rather than &quotwrestling the ball from a ball boy&quot is the problem here. If one's position is that, evidently, the latter occured not the former, then the suggested draconian actions seem a bit, well, over the top.

[GodalmingYellow]

I suspect that for many of us, the description of the event as &quota grown man .. assaulting and battering a child in public&quot rather than &quotwrestling the ball from a ball boy&quot is the problem here. If one's position is that, evidently, the latter occured not the former, then the suggested draconian actions seem a bit, well, over the top.

https&#58//www&#46facebook&#46com/photo ... permPage=1

That's wrestling the ball is it? I think you'll find the ball is already on the ground. and there are several more photos showing the &quotaction&quot.

I suspect this has more to do with some finding low level assault and battery, as defined by the law, by a grown man against a child, to be acceptable, and others refusing to accept that their argument might be flawed.

[Ancient Colin]

Well the ball is on the ground. But I would be absolutely very reluctant to say that was conclusive evidence of &quotassault and battery&quot. Ritchie is looking at the ball, is he not? And the sequence in Darrell's photos hardly makes a case for &quotassault and battery&quot, does it? I must say, though, that I had thought that the ballboy had actually got the ball first, rather than moving to obstruct and prevent Ritchie getting the ball. So &quotwrestling to get the ball&quot then. I am not sure that makes any material difference to my view of the severity of the incident.

[Baboo]

Truth of the matter is neither of us really know what the vast majority think because we will never know the vast majority and they will never get to vote on the issue. But I think the vast majority of posters (if not all) on this forum are sensible intelligent people so I would take a lot of notice of their views and consider it to be a good indicator.
That photo is telling me nothing tbh.
And I honestly can't really remember the speeding debate but I'm pretty sure I didn't want people banned and losing their licence for going a few miles over the limit (which imho is often too low). But that's another kettle of fish.

[GodalmingYellow]

People see what they want to see.

We all saw the incident live. We can all see the pictures now.
Ritchie has clearly pushed the ballboy and did so using force and a limited amount of aggression.

I'm not quite sure why you would think that was not assault and battery.

Do you not accept what I have said about the law on this subject, or are you choosing to ignore the law and give your own interpretation of what assault and battery is?

People have been prosecuted for far less. People have lost their jobs for far less. People have been prevented having solitary access to children for far less.

In most debates on here I can see the arguments others may be making even if I disagree with them, but in this case, in all honesty I can't quite see what the argument against is.

Sure it is low level assault and battery, but it remains assault and battery nonetheless.

[Myles Francis]

In the debate about &quotwrestling for the ball&quot a lot of people seem to be ignoring the comment from the ballboy that Ritchie actually kicked him as well.

And IMHO this &quothe was asking for it&quot nonsense is precisely that: nonsense. Anyway, that's my last word on the matter save for expressing my surprise and disappointment at some of the views being expressed by those I hitherto considered to be intelligent and rational people.

[Baboo]

P
People have been prosecuted for far less. People have lost their jobs for far less. People have been prevented having solitary access to children for far less.

Well if that is so the world is completely barking mad, with commonsense packed up in a neat little box and buried for good.

[GodalmingYellow]

In the debate about &quotwrestling for the ball&quot a lot of people seem to be ignoring the comment from the ballboy that Ritchie actually kicked him as well.

And IMHO this &quothe was asking for it&quot nonsense is precisely that: nonsense. Anyway, that's my last word on the matter save for expressing my surprise and disappointment at some of the views being expressed by those I hitherto considered to be intelligent and rational people.

Same for me We've spent long enough on this and one or two views on this forum of all forums have surprised and disappointed me as well.