Last nights pitch invader vs Brighton

[Guest MattP]

Absolutely ludicrous overreaction from the club, will also send an email tomorrow.

Draconian punishments for celebrating? Only in football. Genuinely think a lot of our fans are a bit weird, think every other set of fans in the country like a old fashioned celebratory pitch invasion.

Agree with ADK and Eastfox as well, the lack of solidarity between supporters in Britain is appalling, no wonder they get away with treating us like shit and charging a fortune to do it.

P.S Tylesta are you the guy who used to work in the crowies a bit around 2001-2005? Family member ran it for a bit? We went to Brum away in that famous day where we ended up being chased by Zulus flashing blades down New Street?

[Carl the Llama]

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.

Penultimate sentence of the post you were replying to.  Read it.

[Steven]

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.

[WhispyWizard]

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

Nope, people would probably be more happy to sit in jail for a night/nights for a "public order offence" than miss an entire season of football.

[shade]

Penultimate sentence of the post you were replying to.  Read it.

 

"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 sure there is more to it than that. an obvious one being player safety. i don't understand how you can't grasp that?

 

if people are strongly discouraged from going on the pitch, then you are less likely to have fan/player related incidents. if people are strongly discouraged from going over 30 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, then you are less liklely to have deaths. its pretty simple logic.

[Babylon]

Nope, people would probably be more happy to sit in jail for a night/nights for a "public order offence" than miss an entire season of football.

I'm not sure a night in the cells is the maximum sentence though is it.

[theessexfox]

"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 sure there is more to it than that. an obvious one being player safety. i don't understand how you can't grasp that?

 

if people are strongly discouraged from going on the pitch, then you are less likely to have fan/player related incidents. if people are strongly discouraged from going over 30 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, then you are less liklely to have deaths. its pretty simple logic.

Take it we shouldn't have player signing sessions, fans allowed around the players entrance, Liam Moore's party, etc etc for the sake of player safety? 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

A summary of the arguments and my response to them:

 

1: "It's against the rules", "rules are there for a reason","if you can't do the time, don't do the crime"

 

Nobody disputes that it is "against the rules". This alone means nothing because it's the legitimacy of the extent of the punishment that is being contested. Rules are proxies for desired behaviour - a punishment should reflect the severity of the conduct and be a means of inducing desired behaviour. A punishment is not simply an "eye for an eye" response to somebody violating the words of a particular rule.

 

I cannot express this difference enough. If somebody breaks into your home, you are upset because they have taken your property that doesn't belong to them and violated your privacy, not because they have acted contrary to the terms of the Theft Act 1968. If they go guilty, offer to repay the money and property and apologise profusely, their sentence will not be the same as somebody who tied you up, laughed in court, and refused to say what he had done with your stuff. Both people in this instance have "broken the rules", but the fact that they have broken the rules is not as relevant as the actual nature of their conduct.

 

This guy ran onto the pitch, showed no signs of acting with hostility to anybody, apologised straight away and has acted with contrition and remorse ever since. Refusing to acknowledge the actual seriousness of his behaviour results in a disproportionate response.

 

2: "It could have been a lot worse", "he could have got a 3 year ban", "he should be thankful he isn't awaiting execution"

 

This is not relevant. The fact that a wide range of possible outcomes exists doesn't make the current response a justified one. To use my above example, the person who sees an open door, opportunistically swipes a toaster and legs it before guilt gets the better of him and he hands himself in will rightly consider himself unfortunate to be given, say, 7 years' imprisonment for his lapse in judgement. The fact that he could have received 14 years according to the statutory maximum makes no difference to the fairness of the 7-year sentence - it's still unfair, regardless of how much worse it technically could have been.

 

3. "He knew what he was doing", "he should have and did know better", "the rules are there for anyone to see"

 

This sort of self-righteous finger-pointing ignores the fact that human beings sometimes make mistakes. The legal system acknowledges human stupidity and lapses in judgement, because we are imperfect mammals with imperfect brains and we don't always make the best choices. Most people don't make decisions in the way this ridiculous argument suggests. 

 

4. "What if he stabbed a player?", "What if he shat on the ball and volleyed it at the dugout?", "What if he was actually a child on another child's shoulders wearing a long coat or a lizard dressed as a human?"

 

This embarrassing line of reasoning would result in a complete standstill in all situations. Footballer would never go anywhere. In fact, nobody would go anywhere. They are more likely to be attacked in a busy town centre on a Saturday night around lots of drunk people and some genuine nutcases, but I didn't see the people so concerned about a potentially "shanking" on this thread expressing how terrified they were that the same might happen when the players were celebrating. They do signing sessions, public talks, and other gatherings all the time. Should they stop doing this because they are likely to be stabbed?

 

To every painfully smug person delighting in the fact that somebody else has been treated heavy-handedly for not having the wisdom and foresight that they themselves have, get off your pedestal and mix with us mortals, you might see how we live and understand why we don't always behave as blamelessly as you. And I sincerely hope none of you ever get into a position of legislative or judicial power because every one of us will have all of the books thrown at us, and you'll be smiling while throwing them.

[El Sieffsi]

I'm sure the players safety is high on the clubs policy concerning pitch invasions.

We've seen players assaulted..and there IS a possibility that something worse could happen.

Also..I'd say the fans and stewards safety would also be high on the agenda.

With thousands of people surging forward..there is a huge risk of people getting harmed or worse.

There will be fans who don't want to get on the pitch that will be pushed about..there's also the likelihood that someone trips over and gets trampled.

Some will say pitch invasions have happened before and nobody died or were harmed..possibly true.

BUT..if you owned the club..would you take that risk?

Regarding the punishment given to the lad..given that it was after the game and he kept away from the players..also that he put up no fight AND has apologised and offered to do voluntary work..personally I think it's harsh to ban him for next season..but at the same time I can understand the clubs action as a deterrent.

I can still picture his face as he looked round and realised he was on his own..sorry pal but it was hilarious.

Just needed Delia Smith to stagger on the pitch and yell.."Wheeere are you..show yourselves"..to all the others who were apparently "On the pitch".

[TheLittleBigMan]

My email has been sent to the director of operations for review. Now we wait. Once again, thanks for all the support. 

[lcfcfem]

I have also sent an email to support the lad.  Why?  Because, I know, without a doubt, had others ran on the pitch in their 100s, I would have been on there too.  

[Bert]

The FA can also choose to fine the club show any pitch excursions occur at any time during the season.

[tylesta]

The FA can also choose to fine the club show any pitch excursions occur at any time during the season.

If we was fined would we all chip in and pay the fine

[AndWhat?]

I doubt any club has ever been fined for a celebratory pitch invasion.

[Bert]

I doubt any club has ever been fined for a celebratory pitch invasion.

Probably not. Was just making a point like.

[tylesta]

I doubt any club has ever been fined for a celebratory pitch invasion.

Hearts were fined v liverpool

[AndWhat?]

Hearts were fined v liverpool

That was UEFA, they'd fine you for sneezing.

Plus, it was only 4 grand lol

[Grandad.]

Hearts were fined v liverpool

 

That's UEFA though, they are wankers.

[broughtonblue]

A summary of the arguments and my response to them:

1: "It's against the rules", "rules are there for a reason","if you can't do the time, don't do the crime"

Nobody disputes that it is "against the rules". This alone means nothing because it's the legitimacy of the extent of the punishment that is being contested. Rules are proxies for desired behaviour - a punishment should reflect the severity of the conduct and be a means of inducing desired behaviour. A punishment is not simply an "eye for an eye" response to somebody violating the words of a particular rule.

I cannot express this difference enough. If somebody breaks into your home, you are upset because they have taken your property that doesn't belong to them and violated your privacy, not because they have acted contrary to the terms of the Theft Act 1968. If they go guilty, offer to repay the money and property and apologise profusely, their sentence will not be the same as somebody who tied you up, laughed in court, and refused to say what he had done with your stuff. Both people in this instance have "broken the rules", but the fact that they have broken the rules is not as relevant as the actual nature of their conduct.

This guy ran onto the pitch, showed no signs of acting with hostility to anybody, apologised straight away and has acted with contrition and remorse ever since. Refusing to acknowledge the actual seriousness of his behaviour results in a disproportionate response.

2: "It could have been a lot worse", "he could have got a 3 year ban", "he should be thankful he isn't awaiting execution"

This is not relevant. The fact that a wide range of possible outcomes exists doesn't make the current response a justified one. To use my above example, the person who sees an open door, opportunistically swipes a toaster and legs it before guilt gets the better of him and he hands himself in will rightly consider himself unfortunate to be given, say, 7 years' imprisonment for his lapse in judgement. The fact that he could have received 14 years according to the statutory maximum makes no difference to the fairness of the 7-year sentence - it's still unfair, regardless of how much worse it technically could have been.

3. "He knew what he was doing", "he should have and did know better", "the rules are there for anyone to see"

This sort of self-righteous finger-pointing ignores the fact that human beings sometimes make mistakes. The legal system acknowledges human stupidity and lapses in judgement, because we are imperfect mammals with imperfect brains and we don't always make the best choices. Most people don't make decisions in the way this ridiculous argument suggests.

4. "What if he stabbed a player?", "What if he shat on the ball and volleyed it at the dugout?", "What if he was actually a child on another child's shoulders wearing a long coat or a lizard dressed as a human?"

This embarrassing line of reasoning would result in a complete standstill in all situations. Footballer would never go anywhere. In fact, nobody would go anywhere. They are more likely to be attacked in a busy town centre on a Saturday night around lots of drunk people and some genuine nutcases, but I didn't see the people so concerned about a potentially "shanking" on this thread expressing how terrified they were that the same might happen when the players were celebrating. They do signing sessions, public talks, and other gatherings all the time. Should they stop doing this because they are likely to be stabbed?

To every painfully smug person delighting in the fact that somebody else has been treated heavy-handedly for not having the wisdom and foresight that they themselves have, get off your pedestal and mix with us mortals, you might see how we live and understand why we don't always behave as blamelessly as you. And I sincerely hope none of you ever get into a position of legislative or judicial power because every one of us will have all of the books thrown at us, and you'll be smiling while throwing them.

Do you really believe what you write?

[Carl the Llama]

Do you really believe what you write?

Do you really just rely on self-righteous rhetorical questions instead of using your language skills to communicate a coherent response?

[Craig]

My email has been sent to the director of operations for review. Now we wait. Once again, thanks for all the support. 

Kevin Barclay? 

[AndWhat?]

Kevin Barclay? 

 

Yep, apparently he's calmed down a lot over the last 4 or 5  years. So all is not lost. 

[broughtonblue]

Do you really just rely on self-righteous rhetorical questions instead of using your language skills to communicate a coherent response?

Was the reply posted at you or marshallforengland? It really is rude to but into other peoples conversations

[Babylon]

Do you really just rely on self-righteous rhetorical questions instead of using your language skills to communicate a coherent response?

It's not worth a response.

 

Comments like this are pathetic and make him as smug and on a pedestal as those he's having a go at.

 

To every painfully smug person delighting in the fact that somebody else has been treated heavy-handedly for not having the wisdom and foresight that they themselves have, get off your pedestal and mix with us mortals, you might see how we live and understand why we don't always behave as blamelessly as you.

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

Was the reply posted at you or marshallforengland? It really is rude to but into other peoples conversations

Don't lecture me on manners when you can't even be bothered to explain why you think someone's wrong instead of being smug.  Superficial one liners don't make you look as clever as you think.

 

It's not worth a response.

Probably true, but also too late.