[Albion] Marseille fans

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊



Horses Arse

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2004
4,571
here and there
No, you’ve misunderstood.

The two situations were different. The police at the NS end did what they thought was right in the circumstances. They arrested a man who threw a smoke bomb or flare, whatever, onto the pitch. I can’t criticise that decision.

The police at the South End did what they thought was right in the circumstances. They decided that wading into the crowd to arrest dozens of people who were holding, or had held, flares, would lead to a violent escalation.

Justice? Perhaps not. Good policing? Yes.
Shit policing, going for the easy target rather than the dangerous and life threatening risk (unless of course flares are totally safe????).

The one consistent is that there will always be those that seek out any justification to excuse the reaction of those in power. Sometimes those arguments change to maintain a justification that what those in power do is justified.

It's fascinating (as well as shit). There are so many examples of blind excusing of those in power ending badly, but it still happens. Mind you, that would be whataboutery I guess!!
 




peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,282
The thing is that he was arrested, we don't know if he was arrested during the game or after the game, or if he even got arrested away from the Amex.

The other big difference is that he threw it onto the pitch, whereas the French fans didn't. I absolutely understand they had a lot more flares though etc.

Did the police track down the man from Lewes without acknowledgement from the club? Probably not, unless perhaps he was arrested during or just after the game.
Youd guess it's the club CCTV married with the ticketing/seat manifest that nailed Lewes man?

I guess pretty much everybody is in universal agreement Lewes man shouldnt have luzzed a smoke bomb and that it is an offence.

The difference seems more in, if that offence is going to be pursued rigourosly, can the club confirm they will also do everything in their power (however hard) to identify, report to UEFA etc the more dangerous offences of lit fireworks? or will they in fact do nothing more in that respect now game is over and it will just be Lewes man?

Selective rules/Justice, or universal?
 


TomandJerry

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2013
12,323
Youd guess it's the club CCTV married with the ticketing/seat manifest that nailed Lewes man?

I guess pretty much everybody is in universal agreement Lewes man shouldnt have luzzed a smoke bomb and that it is an offence.

The difference seems more in, if that offence is going to be pursued rigourosly, can the club confirm they will also do everything in their power (however hard) to identify, report to UEFA etc the more dangerous offences of lit fireworks? or will they in fact do nothing more in that respect now game is over and it will just be Lewes man?

Selective rules/Justice, or universal?
I believe everyone agrees that it should be universal justice. I trust that the club is pursuing this with UEFA and there own security personal since so many flares seemingly got through into the ground

Did the away fans even get a pat down?
 


Sirnormangall

Well-known member
Sep 21, 2017
3,184
Any decent lawyer would get the Albion fan off the hook as no action was taken against Marseille fans.
I’m not sure about that - if you’re caught speeding and the police don’t stop the faster car in front, you’re still speeding. But it doesn’t seem right that the only punishment is for our single flare, which was sadly pathetic by comparison to the pyrotechnic display at the opposite end (and the club’s own pre match display).
 


Colonel Mustard

Well-known member
Jun 18, 2023
2,240
Shit policing, going for the easy target rather than the dangerous and life threatening risk (unless of course flares are totally safe????).

The one consistent is that there will always be those that seek out any justification to excuse the reaction of those in power. Sometimes those arguments change to maintain a justification that what those in power do is justified.

It's fascinating (as well as shit). There are so many examples of blind excusing of those in power ending badly, but it still happens. Mind you, that would be whataboutery I guess!!
Whataboutery is exactly what it is. The bloke threw a smoke bomb onto the pitch. f*** him. He’s an idiot. Let’s prosecute him. Maybe it will stop others from doing the same. If he gets off with a warning and a few free pints when he’s next in his local, do you think it’s more or less likely that some other twat will try it again next time?

As for the 'shit policing' of the Marseille end, unlike you, I had a grandstand seat down there. I’ve asked this question more than once: what do you think would have happened if the police had waded into the OM ultras to arrest people holding flares? What exactly do you think the police should have done down there?

I still don’t think you’re distinguishing between justice and pragmatic policing. Armchair policemen like you think it’s very simple. It isn’t.
 




peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,282
I think you are getting a bit sidetracked here tbh in targeting some sort of animosity at the Club and also, perhaps a little uninformed on how the law on fireworks and pyros is implemented in European competition. It is not about ‘easy targets’ or the Club punishing their own fans:

In English law, it is not the Club that punish fans anyway for criminal offences, nor is it the police but the Courts - the Club have no jurisdiction - sometimes there are mitigating circumstances that reduce the sanctions the Court imposes (including whether or not to impose a FBO) - including whether it was thrown, who brought into the club, whether anyone was injured etc There’s no good blaming the Club if one fan got a harsher punishment than another.


European competitions operate under UEFA regulations and host clubs and the FA are held liable for home and away fans inappropriate behaviour (Art 16). Clubs can avail themselves of the defence in article 16 (1) if they can show they weren’t negligent for many offences under the UEFA Regulations. Because there is often no direct legal relationship between foreign fans and domestic law, it would be hard/complicated for governing bodies to prevent disturbances purely by domestic arrests of foreign fans - hence UEFA’s regime of regulation - Moreover, there is a strict liability for firework and pyro offences so the defence doesn’t apply and the host Club will still be held responsible even if they weren’t at fault (although the sanctions against the club can be reduced or dispensed with depending on the circumstances and information they can provide about the incident(s).

“The use of flares and pyros in this way is incredibly irresponsible and endangers fellow supporters and club staff.


“We have a zero-tolerance approach to anyone bringing flares, pyros or similar into a football stadium"

does that Zero tolerance include Marseille?
 


thedonkeycentrehalf

Moved back to wear the gloves (again)
Jul 7, 2003
9,357
Right, see if you can make out the top line :

J U S T F U

Now the second line :

C K O F F

And the next one :

U D I K

Splendid!
I didn’t know you worked for Vision Express
 






Colonel Mustard

Well-known member
Jun 18, 2023
2,240
Maybe although in your thought process the scary looking guy gets away with it. Because eh he looks more scary.
No. That’s not what I said.

A lot of scary looking blokes get arrested, every day of the week. But if the scary guy is in a crowd of hundreds of other scary guys, it’s a totally different situation. Is it fair? No. Is it understandable why a police officer, or even 10 police officers, will have to take stock of the situation before steaming in? Yes it is. Not sure why that’s hard to understand.
 


Horses Arse

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2004
4,571
here and there
Whataboutery is exactly what it is. The bloke threw a smoke bomb onto the pitch. f*** him. He’s an idiot. Let’s prosecute him. Maybe it will stop others from doing the same. If he gets off with a warning and a few free pints when he’s next in his local, do you think it’s more or less likely that some other twat will try it again next time?

As for the 'shit policing' of the Marseille end, unlike you, I had a grandstand seat down there. I’ve asked this question more than once: what do you think would have happened if the police had waded into the OM ultras to arrest people holding flares? What exactly do you think the police should have done down there?

I still don’t think you’re distinguishing between justice and pragmatic policing. Armchair policemen like you think it’s very simple. It isn’t.
You clearly will accept whatever is dealt from those in authority. I think questioning is appropriate. Probably no point in carrying on the debate as I reckon we're both entranched into these positions.
 


Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
14,280
Cumbria
European competitions operate under UEFA regulations and host clubs and the FA are held liable for home and away fans inappropriate behaviour (Art 16). Clubs can avail themselves of the defence in article 16 (1) if they can show they weren’t negligent for many offences under the UEFA Regulations. Because there is often no direct legal relationship between foreign fans and domestic law, it would be hard/complicated for governing bodies to prevent disturbances purely by domestic arrests of foreign fans - hence UEFA’s regime of regulation - Moreover, there is a strict liability for firework and pyro offences so the defence doesn’t apply and the host Club will still be held responsible even if they weren’t at fault (although the sanctions against the club can be reduced or dispensed with depending on the circumstances and information they can provide about the incident(s).
So - are we likely to be punished by UEFA for Marseille fans' behaviour. Would be a bit harsh.
 












Colonel Mustard

Well-known member
Jun 18, 2023
2,240
Youd guess it's the club CCTV married with the ticketing/seat manifest that nailed Lewes man?

I guess pretty much everybody is in universal agreement Lewes man shouldnt have luzzed a smoke bomb and that it is an offence.

The difference seems more in, if that offence is going to be pursued rigourosly, can the club confirm they will also do everything in their power (however hard) to identify, report to UEFA etc the more dangerous offences of lit fireworks? or will they in fact do nothing more in that respect now game is over and it will just be Lewes man?

Selective rules/Justice, or universal?
I’ve seen no public announcement about this, just as we saw no public announcement from the Dutch after the Amsterdam game about pursuing British beer luzzers. I’m not sure if it’s customary to get a statement unless there’s been serious violence, looting, rioting etc. Holding a flare is illegal I think, but I wouldn’t want us to get hysterical about it.
 


TomandJerry

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2013
12,323
Probably not - seeing as swift action appears to have been taken. Which is presumably partly why it has.
Fair enough point, but we need to attain how so many flares were smuggled into the ground/lack of security, uefa might hit us from that angle?
 


Horses Arse

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2004
4,571
here and there
So you're not going to keep moaning about Paul Barber at every opportunity then? :lolol:
Oh no, I didn't mean that. Just the debate re the smokey guy.

Though now you've prodded me on this one, was there anyone that didn't like there being a smoke bomb? I thought it was great but there needs to be more.

But rest assured, I'll carry on whinging about the dull, binary, arrogant one! Given the shoes brigade on this forum it's both fun and right!
 


Colonel Mustard

Well-known member
Jun 18, 2023
2,240
You clearly will accept whatever is dealt from those in authority. I think questioning is appropriate. Probably no point in carrying on the debate as I reckon we're both entranched into these positions.
Except that you’ve answered none of my points and questions, especially about what you would have done at the South end if you were a police officer. Charge into the crowd? Can you think why they might not have opted to do that?

I’m entrenched in my position insofar as I can understand why the police behaved as they did, and I can’t blame them for behaving like that, regardless of the justice of it. You are focusing solely on the moral aspect, and saying that the police should do whatever they have to do, regardless of practical considerations. This is exactly the problem with continental policing, surely? That they go steaming in to big groups of football fans for the flimsiest of reasons, thereby inflaming the situation.

Justice vs practical policing. Think about it.
 




Stat Brother

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
73,888
West west west Sussex
Fair enough point, but we need to attain how so many flares were smuggled into the ground/lack of security, uefa might hit us from that angle?
Rex and Rover clearly had the sniffles.

I can't wait to do this all over again, when we play palace in February.
 


Zeberdi

“Vorsprung durch Technik”
NSC Patron
Oct 20, 2022
6,941
So - are we likely to be punished by UEFA for Marseille fans' behaviour. Would be a bit harsh.
No - that is not what I said exactly, it depends (and it does not necessarily mean the foreign fan’s own club also escapes sanction or the individual fan) - ‘strict liability’ holds Brighton responsible/liable as the host club in European competition and facing sanctions BUT it doesn’t mean UEFA will actually sanction Brighton as I said above, they may just sanction the visiting club - part of the purpose too of putting fireworks and pyros into a strict liability offence, it means if another fan is injured, they have redress against the Club without having to prove negligence:

- you didn’t click on the link I provided which explains UEFAs approach in more detail - relevant section below:

”For example, a club faced with a sanction under Art 16(2) may attempt to show the efforts it has taken to mitigate the risk of the use of fireworks by their supporters, such as publishing the stadium regulations and a list of prohibited articles on its own website in advance of the fixture and/or sending those same details to each supporter who has purchased a ticket. Moreover, where a club can provide information that UEFA regards as “decisive in uncovering or establishing a breach” of the Disciplinary Regulations, then UEFA can scale down any sanctions or dispense with them entirely (Art 17(2) DR).”

As @Peter Ward indicates below, Brighton can show efforts made to mitigate the risk such as the use of messaging on ticket sales, website etc, searches - but implementing the sanctions/regs is not down to the host club, it is down to UEFA:

We have a zero-tolerance approach to anyone bringing flares, pyros or similar into a football stadium".

“The use of flares and pyros in this way is incredibly irresponsible and endangers fellow supporters and club staff.”

This is an example of Arsenal not being sanctioned but UEFA only sanctioning Galatasaray:

“An interesting example of how the Disciplinary Regulations referenced above have previously been applied by UEFA was the disciplinary measures it took after Galatasaray fans threw flares onto the pitch, during their side’s away Champions League fixture with Arsenal in October 2014, an incident which led to the game being temporarily halted. Despite disciplinary proceedings initially being commenced against Arsenal for a failure to conduct sufficient body searches on the travelling support, the proceedings against Arsenal were subsequently closed and no sanctions imposed, with only Galatasaray sanctioned for their supporters’ pyrotechnic display.”
 
Last edited:


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top