[Football] Punishing all fans for the sins of a few ?

[darkwolf666]

It’s copycat and until there are actual consequences it will get worse and worse. That’s what happened in the 70s and 80s.

This, it's what bred the "no one likes us and we don't care" mentality of Millwall fans.

Clearly we won't go back to pre-Hillsborough days of cages, but something has to change before a very serious incident and all the resultant hand wringing and told you so's.


And yes, I did run on the pitch when we got promotion to Premier League.

 

[darkwolf666]

What happens when someone kills someone in a pub? Do you ban all pubs? What happens when someone die in a car accident, do you ban all cars?

This idea that any incident needs to result in banning something is really common, but also completely idiotic because in the end there would be very few things that humans were free to do.

As usual you go for the dramatic and remind me why I put you on ignore. As this was a grown up conversation I thought you might be adding something to it, so sadly checked your response.

However, it was to be as expected.

The difference you fail to grasp, is that IT IS illegal to enter the field of play, whereas it's not illegal to go the pub or drive a car.

You have set your stall out firmly, in the past, that rules are there to be broken. Fortunately they are also their to protect the public at large from the actions of a stupid minority.

I don't know the answer to the problem, and unlike you never mentioned "banning" anything. I fully understand the exuberance of fans "in the moment", but incidents like that seen with Billy Sharp can't be allowed to be repeated.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

This, it's what bred the "no one likes us and we don't care" mentality of Millwall fans.

Clearly we won't go back to pre-Hillsborough days of cages, but something has to change before a very serious incident and all the resultant hand wringing and told you so's.


And yes, I did run on the pitch when we got promotion to Premier League.

So did I
Seemed ok at the time and was toleratated by the authorities. Things change though and (like you) although I’m not necessarily advocating a clampdown I’m just saying I won’t be surprised if there is one.

 

[darkwolf666]

So did I
Seemed ok at the time and was toleratated by the authorities. Things change though and (like you) although I’m not necessarily advocating a clampdown I’m just saying I won’t be surprised if there is one.

I must admit, I was with my 14 year old grandson for that game. He was chomping at the bit to go over the wall at the end of the game, so I had to go too, for his protection*.

Something does seem to have changed in those few short years. There seems to be an acceptability to attack people, whether it be verbally, on social media, or even in person, with one punch death attacks making the news recently.

I don't know what the answer is, but just hiding behind the "it’s a minority" stance won't hold water for much longer with the authorities.


*this would have been my legal case if arrested.

 

[Swansman]

As usual you go for the dramatic and remind me why I put you on ignore. As this was a grown up conversation I thought you might be adding something to it, so sadly checked your response.

However, it was to be as expected.

The difference you fail to grasp, is that IT IS illegal to enter the field of play, whereas it's not illegal to go the pub or drive a car.

You have set your stall out firmly, in the past, that rules are there to be broken. Fortunately they are also their to protect the public at large from the actions of a stupid minority.

I don't know the answer to the problem, and unlike you never mentioned "banning" anything. I fully understand the exuberance of fans "in the moment", but incidents like that seen with Billy Sharp can't be allowed to be repeated.

First: HWT is going to sue you for copyright infringement if you keep doing the "I put you on ignore but I'm reading all your posts" stuff.

Does pitch invasions being illegal make it more dangerous than the legal act of being very drunk in a bar?

If there should be "rules to protect the majority from the minority" in all situations, no one should be allowed to do anything because there is pretty much no situation where it can not happen.

I agree with the words of Evgeny Morozov in his book about technological solutionism:
“Recasting all complex social situations either as neatly defined problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized—if only the right algorithms are in place!—this quest is likely to have unexpected consequences that could eventually cause more damage than the problems they seek to address.”

This applies to a lot of things, such as playgrounds which today need to be 100% safe at the expense of both the fun and the kids ability to learn to take responsibility. You save a handful of lives every decade but you create a generation of kids that are simultaneously risk averse and naive. Or in the case of pitch invasions - if they are to be stopped at any cost, that cost may well be bigger than the "one headbutt in a 150 years" thing that triggered it. In Peru back in 1964, the authorities did not like pitch invasions so they used tear gas to stop it. 328 people died.

Obviously that wouldnt necessarily be the case in England but it raises questions: are pitch invasions a major problem that needs to be resolved? Or can we accept that during a 1000 joyful pitch invasions, one incident may happen? Can we let it be that way or do we need to react to that one incident? I'm absolutely in the first camp - accept it and move on. Not every instance where incidents happen or even can happen are "problems that needs to be solved".

 

[darkwolf666]

First: HWT is going to sue you for copyright infringement if you keep doing the "I put you on ignore but I'm reading all your posts" stuff.

Does pitch invasions being illegal make it more dangerous than the legal act of being very drunk in a bar?

If there should be "rules to protect the majority from the minority" in all situations, no one should be allowed to do anything because there is pretty much no situation where it can not happen.

I agree with the words of Evgeny Morozov in his book about technological solutionism:
“Recasting all complex social situations either as neatly defined problems with definite, computable solutions or as transparent and self-evident processes that can be easily optimized—if only the right algorithms are in place!—this quest is likely to have unexpected consequences that could eventually cause more damage than the problems they seek to address.”

This applies to a lot of things, such as playgrounds which today need to be 100% safe at the expense of both the fun and the kids ability to learn to take responsibility. You save a handful of lives every decade but you create a generation of kids that are simultaneously risk averse and naive. Or in the case of pitch invasions - if they are to be stopped at any cost, that cost may well be bigger than the "one headbutt in a 150 years" thing that triggered it. In Peru back in 1964, the authorities did not like pitch invasions so they used tear gas to stop it. 328 people died.

Obviously that wouldnt necessarily be the case in England but it raises questions: are pitch invasions a major problem that needs to be resolved? Or can we accept that during a 1000 joyful pitch invasions, one incident may happen? Can we let it be that way or do we need to react to that one incident? I'm absolutely in the first camp - accept it and move on. Not every instance where incidents happen or even can happen are "problems that needs to be solved".

You will be pleased to know I don't read ALL your posts. For instance I noticed you posted something on the Covid thread, which I hadn't opened - however, I read your post on this thread as it was a direct reply to a post of mine, so it seemed rude not to read and reply.

As I said, you have previously set out your clear disregard for rules on MANY occasions, I don't have the energy to argue with you, as there is clearly no point, as your mind is made up and in your libertarian world "rules are for fools".

Like other posters on this thread, I don't want to see bans on outpourings of joy, but if you can't see the Billy Sharp incident was wrong and shouldn't be allowed to happen again, then you are a bigger fool than I took you for!

 

[Swansman]

You will be pleased to know I don't read ALL your posts. For instance I noticed you posted something on the Covid thread, which I hadn't opened - however, I read your post on this thread as it was a direct reply to a post of mine, so it seemed rude not to read and reply.

As I said, you have previously set out your clear disregard for rules on MANY occasions, I don't have the energy to argue with you, as there is clearly no point, as your mind is made up and in your libertarian world "rules are for fools".

Like other posters on this thread, I don't want to see bans on outpourings of joy, but if you can't see the Billy Sharp incident was wrong and shouldn't be allowed to happen again, then you are a bigger fool than I took you for!

More indifferent than pleased but alright. Keep me updated on the ignore situation each time you reply to me, it is very exciting stuff.

My mind is made up yes, as is your attitude on the subject.

Obviously I think it was wrong to assault Billy Sharp, but it wasn't "allowed" to happen (the guy got arrested). I also think it is wrong when someone gets stabbed walking down the street but that doesn't mean I would make laws to prevent people from walking down the street. A world where the risk of any kind of incident happening in any kind of situation should be reduced to 0% - through laws and enforcement - is not a very pleasant world.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

More indifferent than pleased but alright. Keep me updated on the ignore situation each time you reply to me, it is very exciting stuff.

My mind is made up yes, as is your attitude on the subject.

Obviously I think it was wrong to assault Billy Sharp, but it wasn't "allowed" to happen (the guy got arrested). I also think it is wrong when someone gets stabbed walking down the street but that doesn't mean I would make laws to prevent people from walking down the street. A world where the risk of any kind of incident happening in any kind of situation should be reduced to 0% - through laws and enforcement - is not a very pleasant world.

Not a great argument. There are laws to prevent people carrying knives…

 

[Boroseagull]

Northampton fans running on pitch with smoke bombs and flares at tonight’s L2 semi final.

Every match now seemingly has illegal pyrotechnics, both kids and adults frequently entering field of play.

What’s got into people suddenly?

You do wonder about stadium security with all these flares and other pyrotechnics being discharged at matches, more often than not during the actual game. There was a serious and potentially fatal incident in the last match of the season at Stevenage vs Salford. An idiot set a flare off during the game and an asthma sufferer close by couldn't move out of the way quickly enough, was enveloped by the smoke, collapsed and it needed not only the on duty ambulance crew but the club doctor to administer to him. Apparently he had his ventilator with him but the incident was too serious for it to help. The game was disrupted, an innocent spectator may have died all because of what?

 

[Swansman]

Not a great argument. There are laws to prevent people carrying knives…

Not a great argument. Knives are legal despite the risk of some idiot using it in the wrong way. They dont confiscate all the knives on the planet because 1 out of xxx thousand use it poorly. So why stop all pitch invasions because one person used the situation in a bad manner? Should one person be allowed to stop what has been a massive joy for millions of people for 100+ years?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Not a great argument. Knives are legal despite the risk of some idiot using it in the wrong way. They dont confiscate all the knives on the planet because 1 out of xxx thousand use it poorly. So why stop all pitch invasions because one person used the situation in a bad manner? Should one person be allowed to stop what has been a massive joy for millions of people for 100+ years?

I’m pretty certain that whilst you can use your knife to make your dinner but you cannot walk down a street carrying one. I would certainly call the police if I ever saw you doing so. In similar fashion you can run over any public park as many times as you like but on privately owned football fields you can be told to keep off. Your rights to do as you please are less important than Billy Sharp’s safety. It doesn’t mean pitch invasions will be banned, but if they are then tough. Your ‘rights’ won’t be a factor as the decision will be taken for the benefit of our community.

 

[Change at Barnham]

The smokes flares and pyros are getting silly and it seems they are easy to obtain and easy to smuggle in to grounds.

Premier League and Championship stadiums all have CCTV cameras. And probably most L1 &L2 stadiums also.

Begin by saying that anyone seen and identified releasing a pyro or smoke bomb will get a stadium ban of a couple of seasons (or however long is deemed reasonable).
The clubs would only need to publish a few bans in the local media and people would start thinking twice before doing it. Currently it's a free for all.

It's a bit like being caught speeding, it's frustrating getting spotted and penalised, but everyone is accountable for their actions.

 

[darkwolf666]

More indifferent than pleased but alright. Keep me updated on the ignore situation each time you reply to me, it is very exciting stuff.

My mind is made up yes, as is your attitude on the subject.

Obviously I think it was wrong to assault Billy Sharp, but it wasn't "allowed" to happen (the guy got arrested). I also think it is wrong when someone gets stabbed walking down the street but that doesn't mean I would make laws to prevent people from walking down the street. A world where the risk of any kind of incident happening in any kind of situation should be reduced to 0% - through laws and enforcement - is not a very pleasant world.

I have a simple solution to the problem, don’t reply to my posts, then I won’t have to take you off ignore and get into a discussion with you, to see what you may have written in reply to, or about me.

As for your latest response of extremes.

Life always has some risk (never zero, that’s you being over dramatic to make a point again), but equally mitigations are put in place to keep people safe, for the safety of all and often from their own actions like wearing seat belts when driving, crash helmets on a motor bike, or even refusing to serve a drunk in a pub and not allowing people to drive under the influence.

In relation to the man stabbed walking down the street scenario, you take the opposite, extreme view to prove your point, again!

No, people shouldn’t be banned from walking down the street, but others should be banned from carrying knives. This is covered by laws, laws which ban the carrying of knives in public. The results of knife attacks has resulted in further action being taken, like laws banning sales of knives to minors.

Equally, fans are banned from entering the field of play, by law. The authorities, be it football or government, will be looking at these latest incidents and I am sure having discussions to prevent the mindless minority, which almost undoubtedly, as per usual, impact on the law abiding majority - such is life.

 

[Swansman]

I’m pretty certain that whilst you can use your knife to make your dinner but you cannot walk down a street carrying one. I would certainly call the police if I ever saw you doing so. In similar fashion you can run over any public park as many times as you like but on privately owned football fields you can be told to keep off. Your rights to do as you please are less important than Billy Sharp’s safety. It doesn’t mean pitch invasions will be banned, but if they are then tough. Your ‘rights’ won’t be a factor as the decision will be taken for the benefit of our community.

No generally speaking my rights are more important than Billy Sharp being a 100% safe a 100% of the time. I am allowed to own a car, despite it being a potential threat to his (and everyone elses) safety. I'm allowed to own knives so I can cook food, despite the very hypothetical chance of it being used to deny someone their safety. I am allowed to own a washing machine, despite occasions where such devices have caught fire or electrified someone. So why shouldn't I be allowed to celebrate a big victory with everyone involved despite the (very unusual) chance of someone using it in the wrong manner or risking someones safety with it? And how is it of any benefit to a community or footballer that fans and players would not be allowed to celebrate together? Should one single idiot be allowed to remove that joy, permanently?

 

[dazzer6666]

Interesting take on the current trend

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...sm-scandals-english-football-grip-collective/

 

[keaton]

First: HWT is going to sue you for copyright infringement if you keep doing the "I put you on ignore but I'm reading all your posts" stuff.

Does pitch invasions being illegal make it more dangerous than the legal act of being very drunk in a bar?



This applies to a lot of things, such as playgrounds which today need to be 100% safe at the expense of both the fun and the kids ability to learn to take responsibility. You save a handful of lives every decade but you create a generation of kids that are simultaneously risk averse and naive.

.

See when you say things like this, it's obvious your basing things on stuff you've read online rather than any real experience. This is a common trope in comment sections, I'm not sure what it's based. If you think they're safe, try following an confident two year old round for a bit

 

[Swansman]

See when you say things like this, it's obvious your basing things on stuff you've read online rather than any real experience. This is a common trope in comment sections, I'm not sure what it's based. If you think they're safe, try following an confident two year old round for a bit

I don't think anyone is or should be 100% safe all of the time.

 

[severnside gull]

The FA will do sweet FA as usual

 

[rippleman]

Saw on the thread about the Forest fan assault some people suggesting that the club itself should have to face some punishment e.g. restriction on fans , lower ticket allocation etc .
When i have suggested this sort of thing ( points deduction for bottle throwers for example ) to others in the past i have often been shot down by the argument that why should all the good fans be punished as well .
However when reading the thread about bottle tops and flasks i suddenly realised that this is exactly what is happening in this case i.e. i cannot take in a flask or a bottle of water because some other twits have thrown things at players or oppo fans !
So maybe it is a case of fans can be punished but clubs not so much ?

Barber's bottle top ban is a complete and utter nonsense. A fan who wanted to throw a full bottle onto the pitch can just stick a wad of tissue in the top or, with a bit of planning, take a lump of blu-tac to seal the end.

It's daft. It's nonsense. It makes no sense.

As I posted on another thread, hopefully our Board reps will make Barber see the error of his ways on this, and his other petty rules, that just detract from his "customers'" experience.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Barber's bottle top ban is a complete and utter nonsense. A fan who wanted to throw a full bottle onto the pitch can just stick a wad of tissue in the top or, with a bit of planning, take a lump of blu-tac to seal the end.

It's daft. It's nonsense. It makes no sense.

As I posted on another thread, hopefully our Board reps will make Barber see the error of his ways on this, and his other petty rules, that just detract from his "customers'" experience.

Have you been reading internet how to guides?