Last nights pitch invader vs Brighton

[broughtonblue]

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.

Probably true, but also too late.

If you read back through the thread you will see my posts as to why I thought he was wrong!

[TheRutlandfox]

I  too got a nice email back from Jim 

 

we shall await  the end of the season to see what our fellow fox posts and see however I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone else having a go at adding to the pitch entertainment this season  even though my heart says why not 

[Nick]

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.

 

 

Good post.

 

I think though you hit the nail on the head in the first paragraph.

 

Punishment, as you define should be proportionate to conduct and a means of inducing a desired response. 

 

The issue in my opinion in this instance is that the 'deterrence element' is the most important factor by those imposing the sentence and possibly therefore clouds the 'proportionality judgement' from a fan- based perspective.

 

If there is a continued risk of pitch invasion, it risks fines to the club and an extra high cost in policing and perhaps a cost of repairing any damage to advertising boards, turf, goalposts, health and safety risks e.g. crowd injuries and even injuries to players etc if 30,000 people have an hour's party at the end of the game.

 

The club has to want to avoid this, so 'going soft' on this individual, right now at this moment in time - and publicly, may not be a desirable option.

 

I think it's more likely they will mellow after the season ends (Providing there's not a pitch invasion in the next week or two!)

 

If I was the culprit - I'd let it drop for a while, until the season ends at least, as hundreds of foxes supporters writing to the club speaking out for the individual may be suggesting to the club that fans don't see a pitch invasion as a big thing and that's preferably what they would like to avoid.

 

The battle is worth fighting - I would just pick my moment and wait for the season to finish.

[Matt]

All the Brentford fans are currently being restrained and arrested and will all be given bans after just running on the pitch.

 

Dangerous too, they need Rotherham to lose, which they are but have 10 minutes left in their game v Wolves, currently 4-3.

 

Edit 1;

Hahaha! No way. Wolves 4 - 4 Rotherham. Oh dear Brentford fans this could be embaressing for you. I know they're pretty much up anyway though.

 

Edit 2;

Wolves 5-4 Rotherham, fans also on the pitch at Wolves before the game has even ended, naughty, naughty.

Pitch cleared, 6 minutes left.

[Foxes1]

Wolves 5 Rotherham 4 Get off the pitch Brentford

[Foxes1]

Make that 6-4, Brentford still on the pitch.

[TheLittleBigMan]

Heard nothing back yet people. Still we wait...

[AndWhat?]

Heard nothing back yet people. Still we wait...

 

I doubt you will hear until this season is over.

 

The club will want us all to think that a whole season ban will be given if we run on the pitch.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

One question that remains unanswered is this... Regardless of the rights/wrongs or the dangers/possibilities, why is Leicester City as a club so determined to prevent even the hint of a pitch invasion whereas every other club in the country clearly isn't bothered?!

What is it about our club that makes us take such a hard line stance in this? To go to extreme cost and effort just to prevent people running on the pitch as they have done and will do at other clubs up and down the country this season?

It baffles me, it really does.

[Guest Basildon Fox]

Why is it better to celebrate on the pitch rather than in the stands?  Genuine question.  I am as passionate as anyone when it comes to Leicester but I can not see how I would enjoy the celebration more on the pitch than in the stands.

[DB11]

 

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

 

WTF is that beard

[AndWhat?]

One question that remains unanswered is this... Regardless of the rights/wrongs or the dangers/possibilities, why is Leicester City as a club so determined to prevent even the hint of a pitch invasion whereas every other club in the country clearly isn't bothered?!

What is it about our club that makes us take such a hard line stance in this? To go to extreme cost and effort just to prevent people running on the pitch as they have done and will do at other clubs up and down the country this season?

It baffles me, it really does.

 

Have you not met Kevin Barclay?

[Unabomber]

WTF is that beard

He genuinely looks like a homeless drug addict. 

[JonnyBoy]

Really????

So you equate running on a football pitch with drink driving??

Wow, what little fascist world do you live in??

(clearly you haven't been to 'Harvard' either, your grammar is appaling, 'should of' should be should've or should have)

 

 

 

Oh the irony! Mr Gardner, people in glass houses

 

The following are also laws in the United Kingdom, what do you think should happen to people who break them?

 

• Mp's are not allowed to wear armour in parliament
• It is still an offence to beat or shake any carpet rug or mat in any street in the Metropolitan Police District, although you are allowed to shake a doormat before 8am.
• It is illegal to keep a pig sty in front of your house.
• It is illegal to erect a washing line across any street
• It is illegal to wilfully and wantonly disturb people by ringing their doorbells or knocking at their doors - Even if it has a cute name like Ding Dong Ditch, Knock Knocky or Ring and Run.

 

 

 

I thought his post was quite conciliatory, and explained why he picked-up on your spelling. The fact that you cannot respond in an equally mature manner merely reinforces the negative image that people appear to have of you.

 

 

literally falling off my chair laughing right now.. 

 

first post has picked up on grammar, second post has taken time out to research various laws and the third post talking about how people appear to have a negative image of someones opinion  

 

The funniest is thing is that these post were probably sent off the high horse of a middle aged man behind a screen sitting at a desk thinking they have outwitted somebody on a forum... 

 

Look at yourselves!! frankly embarrassing 

 

 

 

 

[SmelliottLcfc]

Dont see why people wouldn't want us to go on the pitch, but it is a personal choice so the bummers can do what they want. Yes its a criminal offence but the players have worked their socks off all year, cant they celebrate for 20mins with the fans on the pitch.

 

Personally i do not understand why the club are being so stubborn about it. Look everywhere else brentford, wolves, burnley. Why can't we??

[Chrysalis]

We still not invaded, shameful

 

burnley invaded when they got promoted.

 

Police dont sotp invasions, its the fans just do it, invade you wimps.

 

What is 20 or so police going to do against 10k invaders?

[stevie lynex on the wing]

Leicester fans wont go on the pitch as the fans are far to soft (not a bad thing) in the 80s 90s we got on the pitch every season .the young kids and lads of today  would rather slag their  own fans. singing where  were you when we were shit etc   big big wake up call next season .they  will  be ripped to bits by a lot of the clubs next season ....L1 are well hard..... ??    .SK1 will be for the old school next season .proper fans ...

[lcfc"weasel"]

I'll chip in on the points about who can bring charges against each other etc.. A steward told the police, "That the club want him charged" when I was in the detention area at Filbert Way, I got a stadium ban of indefinite length, and a caution. The club seem to have too much clout when it comes to this sort of stuff and seem to vary there reaction from incident to incident, for example I know the club were aware of my face due to previous altercations resulting, eventually in a handshake and a pat on the back with stewards. This guy being, I assume, unknown to the club, has got away without any punishment from the police, thankfully. I don't see why they couldn't just reel out there usual letter that I've seen used on at least two others of "You're banned for the next 3 home games and will not be able to return until you have signed a good behavioural contract(utter bullshit, but that's another discussion)". Gives the perpetrator a chance to decide how long they wish to not be able to return, it appears you can delay the meeting for however long you wish. 

[TheLittleBigMan]

Still haven't heard diddley squat from the club. Have emailed Jim but no reply. It's becoming irrelevant now, no season tickets left so not much hope of getting to a game anyway  

[shade]

in hindsight was running on grass that enjoyable?

[Guest MattP]

Surely considering no one has been banned from the last game you have a pretty strong case here?

The club, police and courts surely have to be consistent and can't discriminate.

[ithuriel]

Surely considering no one has been banned from the last game you have a pretty strong case here?

The club, police and courts surely have to be consistent and can't discriminate.

How do you know no one was banned?

[Guest MattP]

How do you know no one was banned?

I'm assuming all weren't banned who invaded the pitch.

[ithuriel]

I'm assuming all weren't banned who invaded the pitch.

From what I was told well before the game, if anyone was grabbed from the first wave of pitch invaders they would be stiffly dealt with and I know at least four guys were escorted round to be processed by the Police.

Just bad luck for those that went first but they knew the risks so what can you do.

[DB11]

Surely considering no one has been banned from the last game you have a pretty strong case here?

The club, police and courts surely have to be consistent and can't discriminate.

 

It's not discriminating it's using discretion.