Last nights pitch invader vs Brighton

[shade]

I don't get it, there's a reason people aren't allowed on the pitch. how do the authorities know he's not going to shank a player, it's quite obvious why it's frowned on and why they would discourage it. sure going 50 in a 30 isn't the end of the world, but it's not allowed because you're more likely to end up with a horrible outcome.

what's more dangerous to players, randoms running on the pitch or randoms not running on the pitch.

[AKCJ]

Hope he gets banned.

 

He knows the rules like everyone else, he hardly looks like he's been to Harvard so not surprising really.

 

Maybe I should of drink drove last night ''I know officer but but but we are promoted let me off''

 

 

You're really going to compare something that kills thousands of people yearly to standing on a bit of grass?

[Larry_LCFC]

I don't get it, there's a reason people aren't allowed on the pitch. how do the authorities know he's not going to shank a player, it's quite obvious why it's frowned on and why they would discourage it. sure going 50 in a 30 isn't the end of the world, but it's not allowed because you're more likely to end up with a horrible outcome.

what's more dangerous to players, randoms running on the pitch or randoms not running on the pitch.

The guy himself knows he was wrong and shouldn't have done it. We all know it was a stupid thing to do and no-one has said he shouldn't receive some punishment. The thing alot of people don't agree with the severity of the punishment. It is excessive for what he did. First match since promotion, didn't disrupt play, didn't go near the players and offered no resistance or bad attitude to stewards. You can see that from the video. He has apologized and offered to do voluntary work to make up for it, and yet remains banned for over a season. He deserves a short ban for sure, but not what he's been given.

[Voll Blau]

I don't get it, there's a reason people aren't allowed on the pitch. how do the authorities know he's not going to shank a player, it's quite obvious why it's frowned on and why they would discourage it. sure going 50 in a 30 isn't the end of the world, but it's not allowed because you're more likely to end up with a horrible outcome.

what's more dangerous to players, randoms running on the pitch or randoms not running on the pitch.

 

Because he didn't have a knife?

[Bert]

Seems to me that just because plenty of people want a pitch invasion to happen that they think he shouldn't face any punishment. A whole season is drastic I'm in full agreement and would say just until the end of the season would be a fair punishment.

Sadly it's out of our hands and the club won't take any leniency on the matter which is a shame considering the circumstances of this season as well as next.

[shade]

Because he didn't have a knife?

fair enough if the club knew that beforehand, I didn't know they had been informed.

remember that turd who punched the goalie, that sort of thing is the exact reason that there should be hefty bans for this.

[AKCJ]

I don't get it, there's a reason people aren't allowed on the pitch. how do the authorities know he's not going to shank a player, it's quite obvious why it's frowned on and why they would discourage it. sure going 50 in a 30 isn't the end of the world, but it's not allowed because you're more likely to end up with a horrible outcome.

what's more dangerous to players, randoms running on the pitch or randoms not running on the pitch.

 

 

By that logic, nobody can walk anywhere.

[TheRutlandfox]

Email also sent hope they do think about lifting next seasons ban mate You made me laugh

 

Dont know who said the wolves fans all got arrested, doesn't look like it here Stewards seem pretty relaxed at Gresty rd on Saturday

 

http://terracelife.co.uk/photos-of-wolves-fans-celebrating-promotion-with-a-pitch-invasion-at-crewe-wwfc-wolves/

 

And good old ex academy prodigy Richard Stearman doesn't seem too bothered as he poses for a selfie Should be arrested for aiding an abetting a criminal offence no doubt

 

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/one-wolves-fan-got-an-wonderful-selfie-with-the-bearded-richard-stearman-during-the-pitch-invasion-picture/

 

 

Too old myself now but why not if some of the youngsters want to why not   Seems we are the only club that wants to enforce the rules

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

I wish there was a message that pops up that instructs the user to read the rest of the thread before they post yet another boring response about how he deserves whatever he gets, should have known better, could have got a lot worse and should consider himself lucky. The ones I can't bear the most are the ones who say "he broke the rules" as if that alone is an argument, and the ones who say "what if he was going to rape one of the players or defecate on the pitch" or some ridiculous variation. These people were the snitches at school, the teacher's nark, the slimey turncoats, the anti-seditionaries desperate to point fingers at others and rejoice in doing so.

 

For future reference, people, saying "end of" at the of a post doesn't actually make it the "end of" anything, especially when it's preceded by nonsense.

[C-man]

Funnily enough, I was threatened by a police officer at Forest to stop doing the willy puller sign or he would arrest me. I then pointed out to him on several occasions of Forest fans doing it to which he would do nothing.

Email has been sent.

8 or 9 years ago I was arrested for doing exactly that to a colleague who was in the Cov end. Got a three match ban but had to go to court THREE fvcking times before magistrates realised what a waste of time it was.

Haven't made a gesture since and it genuinely makes me laugh when I see hundreds if not thousands doing it without stewards blinking an eye, yet the odd 15 year old gets a pasting to pad the stats. Never trusted the police at football since.

[shade]

I wish there was a message that pops up that instructs the user to read the rest of the thread before they post yet another boring response about how he deserves whatever he gets, should have known better, could have got a lot worse and should consider himself lucky. The ones I can't bear the most are the ones who say "he broke the rules" as if that alone is an argument, and the ones who say "what if he was going to rape one of the players or defecate on the pitch" or some ridiculous variation. These people were the snitches at school, the teacher's nark, the slimey turncoats, the anti-seditionaries desperate to point fingers at others and rejoice in doing so.

For future reference, people, saying "end of" at the of a post doesn't actually make it the "end of" anything, especially when it's preceded by nonsense.

or maybe they're just people with common sense who accept that rules are in place for a reason. if you don't want to accept it, don't go, big nige said it himself.

[Carl the Llama]

or maybe they're just people with common sense who accept that rules are in place for a reason. if you don't want to accept it, don't go, big nige said it himself.

Right.  Apartheid, for example, was in place so us decent white folk wouldn't get nigger germs every time we visited the water fountain.  Laws against gay marriage are in place because that's gross and I don't want to think about it.  Cannabis is illegal because one second you're smoking a joint, the next you're living in a crack den renting out your anus to businessmen for another hit.  Good thing rules are always 100% correct and indisputable.

[AndWhat?]

Right.  Apartheid, for example, was in place so us decent white folk wouldn't get nigger germs every time we visited the water fountain.  Laws against gay marriage are in place because that's gross and I don't want to think about it.  Cannabis is illegal because one second you're smoking a joint, the next you're living in a crack den renting out your anus to businessmen for another hit.  Good thing rules are always 100% correct and indisputable.

 

lol lol 

[shade]

Right.  Apartheid, for example, was in place so us decent white folk wouldn't get nigger germs every time we visited the water fountain.  Laws against gay marriage are in place because that's gross and I don't want to think about it.  Cannabis is illegal because one second you're smoking a joint, the next you're living in a crack den renting out your anus to businessmen for another hit.  Good thing rules are always 100% correct and indisputable.

 

technically you're horribly incorrect with your overall assertion.

 

you imply that rules can be incorrect, likening apartheid to running on the pitch. ergo you seem to imply that the actual 'rule' that bans people from running on to the pitch is incorrect. the logical conclusion is that people should be allowed to run on to the pitch?

 

good luck with that bro. break the 'rules', suck up the punishment.

[Babylon]

Right.  Apartheid, for example, was in place so us decent white folk wouldn't get nigger germs every time we visited the water fountain.  Laws against gay marriage are in place because that's gross and I don't want to think about it.  Cannabis is illegal because one second you're smoking a joint, the next you're living in a crack den renting out your anus to businessmen for another hit.  Good thing rules are always 100% correct and indisputable.

 

Quite possibly the worst analogy I've ever seen.

[ADK]

It shouldn't be a criminal offence, but it is up to the club what sort of punishment they want to dish out for breaking their own rule of not invading the pitch. I'm surprised so many of our fans are so unsupportive though. No wonder football is shit these days.

[Babylon]

Just sent him an email. Be nice if the club could exercise a bit more common sense in future.

Would be nice if the fans did also.

[Babylon]

It shouldn't be a criminal offence, but it is up to the club what sort of punishment they want to dish out for breaking their own rule of not invading the pitch. I'm surprised so many of our fans are so unsupportive though. No wonder football is shit these days.

 

Is a ban until the end of next season harsh, yes considering there seemed to be no malice. But I'm not supportive of people saying a ban until the end of the season is enough.

[anotherharboroughfox]

Call me paranoid but I don't want to put the email up here cause I don't want the club knowing who I am, as I genuinely wouldn't put anything past them

But he basically said he sympathises with my thoughts but the boards around the ground warn of what can happen and that my email will be passed onto the relevant department.

He also said my email will be used in reference for the banned supporter.

Pretty straight forward reply

Really do urge anyone who thinks the punishment does not fit the 'crime' to email [email protected] and let them know.

Or you can just sit back and do nothing as a fellow Leicester City fan misses our first season in the Prem for 10 years over a moment of joyous madness.

 

I got that too 

[Carl the Llama]

technically you're horribly incorrect with your overall assertion.

 

you imply that rules can be incorrect, likening apartheid to running on the pitch. ergo you seem to imply that the actual 'rule' that bans people from running on to the pitch is incorrect. the logical conclusion is that people should be allowed to run on to the pitch?

 

good luck with that bro. break the 'rules', suck up the punishment.

How can I make this easier for you to understand?  Obviously apartheid and running onto a pitch is not the same(like, really obviously, you're only trying to frame it that I've said otherwise because it gives you an easy rebuke to make instead of having to think a little bit). The point isn't that you should run onto the pitch, the point is that you shouldn't just accept a rule without thinking about it, especially when that rule allows for unreasonable punishment for harmless behaviour.  So yes, maybe it's wrong for fans to churn up a work of horticultural art, but that doesn't mean the current rules punishing it are correct.  I'm not some hippy anti-establishment moron, just someone with a sense of right and wrong that isn't predicated on the question "is it legal?" which makes for a fool's morality.

[WhispyWizard]

On the other hand, two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not defending the club, but I'm not defending the guy either. As with any incident, person A knows the punishment of doing something like this. We'd just been promoted, should the club let it go? Not sure, I might be tempted to say yes, but that only encourages other incidents because people will say 'he did this and got no punishment so...'.

Not really, the fact that they had to repeat "Its a criminal offence to enter the pitch" and "Don't go on the pitch" over the tannoy kind of suggests that they expected it to happen.

 

Plus, if the tannoy announcement had stated that anyone invading the pitch would be banned from the ground for 18 months, im sure the outcome would have been different!

[Babylon]

Not really, the fact that they had to repeat "Its a criminal offence to enter the pitch" and "Don't go on the pitch" over the tannoy kind of suggests that they expected it to happen.

And it also suggests they didn't want it to happen and were warning people not to do it.

 

Plus, if the tannoy announcement had stated that anyone invading the pitch would be banned from the ground for 18 months, im sure the outcome would have been different!

So stating it's a criminal offense isn't enough then?

[shade]

How can I make this easier for you to understand?  Obviously apartheid and running onto a pitch is not the same(like, really obviously, you're only trying to frame it that I've said otherwise because it gives you an easy rebuke to make instead of having to think a little bit). The point isn't that you should run onto the pitch, the point is that you shouldn't just accept a rule without thinking about it, especially when that rule allows for unreasonable punishment for harmless behaviour.  So yes, maybe it's wrong for fans to churn up a work of horticultural art, but that doesn't mean the current rules punishing it are correct.  I'm not some hippy anti-establishment moron, just someone with a sense of right and wrong that isn't predicated on the question "is it legal?" which makes for a fool's morality.

 

that's the fundamental difference between us then. i don't think the law stopping people encroaching on the pitch is wrong. we've already seen a goalkeeper punched, why would we risk something worse happening when it's pretty easy to avoid.

[shade]

p.s. when knocky got taunted by the watford fans (let's say he had been punched or kicked), that would just be an acceptable side-effect of pitch invasions.

[AndWhat?]

But the LAW hasn't decided to do anything regarding this matter. 

 

So the law shouldn't be getting discussed. 

 

The club are the judge, jury and executioner with this matter and the punishment they have dished out does not fit the 'crime'