[Albion] Ajax Goal Celebrations - Beer Throwing Bans?

[ROSM]

He needs to be given access to the CCTV footage. I look forward to the frame by frame analysis, where he is able to demonstrate that due to the angle of his arm the throwing action was entirely involuntary and only willing participants were covered in the remnants of his point of Henieken anyway.

Will we get a sky sports programme where PBOBE will be questioned by Michael Owen?

Where will we get PC beard and Richard Hebberd brought back to question and review the decision?

 

[Wardy's twin]

Surely the club are simply trusting the Ajax interpretation, the same we expected Palace to do over the fans that broke into the away end.

exactly ....

 

[Acker79]

Presumably if he had thrown the cup onto his knee first and it had deflected into the air then under the current rules the punishment would have been revoked.

Keep up. That was taken out of the laws of the game in 2021!

 

[The Fifth Column]

This thread reads like the Daily Mail, how many fatalities were there?

 

[CheeseRolls]

Will we get a sky sports programme where PBOBE will be questioned by Michael Owen?

Where will we get PC beard and Richard Hebberd brought back to question and review the decision?

There I was enjoying this thread and you had to go and mention Hebberd (grrr).

Anyway as the cup strikes you can clearly see that the spectators back is in a natural position between his shoulder blades and above his backside. Therefore no penalty should be applied.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Wouldn't happen in Scotland. Oh.

 

[Horses Arse]

Sadly familiar. Quite a few years ago I had the following at an away game:-
- drinking before game
- arrive at ground singing within a group
- told to calm down or not going in
- one nil down, responded to taunts by flicking the v at home support
- chucked out, didn't resist but did ask why. "Cos you were warned."

5 home game ban, very important fixtures. Challenged it, told that cctv footage was reviewed and confirmed need for ban. Asked for footage and told not available. Challenged again, nothing doing. Club says ban applies, end of story.

"Your own fault for flicking the v's at a football match. What did you expect. Should have been longer" etc etc etc

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Surely the club are simply trusting the Ajax interpretation, the same we expected Palace to do over the fans that broke into the away end.

The guys admits he threw beer though....which is against the very clear and explicite rules at the Ajax stadium.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

The guys admits he threw beer though....which is against the very clear and explicite rules at the Ajax stadium.

So, there is no need to see the CCTV, in this case.

 

[dazzer6666]

Essentially a 5 match ban for being ejected at an away ground (due to behaviour - which he’s admitted in the article, so ‘seeing the cctv‘ is kind of irrelevant now). I’m even more certain the club got this right reading his account of it

 

[sully]

Dis you get attacked by Ajax fans or was that a steward on a wind up?

Steward on a wind up. We saw Ajax supporters after the game getting selfies with Brighton fans. There are always some bad eggs everywhere but we didn’t see any.

 

[Stat Brother]

Essentially a 5 match ban for being ejected at an away ground (due to behaviour - which he’s admitted in the article, so ‘seeing the cctv‘ is kind of irrelevant now). I’m even more certain the club got this right reading his account of it

Once again it would seem those desperate to stick the boot into the club really ought to have waited.

 

[ozzygull]

Sadly familiar. Quite a few years ago I had the following at an away game:-
- drinking before game
- arrive at ground singing within a group
- told to calm down or not going in
- one nil down, responded to taunts by flicking the v at home support
- chucked out, didn't resist but did ask why. "Cos you were warned."

5 home game ban, very important fixtures. Challenged it, told that cctv footage was reviewed and confirmed need for ban. Asked for footage and told not available. Challenged again, nothing doing. Club says ban applies, end of story.

"Your own fault for flicking the v's at a football match. What did you expect. Should have been longer" etc etc etc

Banned for flicking V's at opposite fans, I do that most games, I don't think they can see me in WSU mind, but didn't think it was a banning offence

 

[Guinness Boy]

Banned for flicking V's at opposite fans, I do that most games, I don't think they can see me in WSU mind, but didn't think it was a banning offence

That reminds me, I must get round to chopping my son's fingers off....

 

[Deleted member 37369]

Essentially a 5 match ban for being ejected at an away ground (due to behaviour - which he’s admitted in the article, so ‘seeing the cctv‘ is kind of irrelevant now). I’m even more certain the club got this right reading his account of it

Exactly! He's sore that he got found out and others might have got away with it!

 

[matski_98]

Neither Brighton stewards, or Darren Balkham, have any jurisdiction in Holland as far as I am aware.

Obviously not the same level but Brighton fans were banned after the Euros for being involved in fighting not so long ago. https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14607789.sussex-hooligans-banned-following-violence-at-euro-2016/

 

[Horses Arse]

Banned for flicking V's at opposite fans, I do that most games, I don't think they can see me in WSU mind, but didn't think it was a banning offence

All about the away club stewarding is the issue. If they decide to chuck you out, albion hand out bans. Doesn't matter what led up to it

It's a shame but as a dull fella called Graham said, it is what it is. We don't have to like or support it though.

 

[matski_98]

First hand account of the banning

Ajax away and football banning orders. — Dogma, a Brighton and Hove Albion fanzine

Ajax away and club banning orders. A first-person account.

www.dogmabrighton.com

 

[Horses Arse]

This place is unbelievable!

 

[Daddies_Sauce]

Kangaroo Court; "an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanour."

There is video evidence (allegedly) and he has admitted the offence, is that not 'good evidence', what else do you need?