Jump to content

Offensive behaviour


Offensive behaviour   

264 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 434
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 11/03/2019 at 20:44, johnnydun said:

:lol: Imagine watching a sniper sitting up in the flood lights picking folk off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NINTCHDBPICT000439757210-e1538943605213.jpg

It's about the only thing Jones has done that's left an impression with any fan this season......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So going by the poll in this thread, we overwhelmingly vote in favour of the responsible club and fans being punished by the governing body.

This comes across to me (correct me if I'm wrong) as we see strict liability as the preferred option

A poll that has been voted on by supporters from a wide range of clubs, ages and backgrounds.

Do the BBC findings not highlight the disconnect between the clubs boardrooms and us fans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bennett said:

The BBC contacted a club they don't talk to for comments.

 

 

That makes sense.

 

I thought that Rangers hadn't banned the BBC? If that's the case, why didn't they reply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, johnnydun said:

So going by the poll in this thread, we overwhelmingly vote in favour of the responsible club and fans being punished by the governing body.

This comes across to me (correct me if I'm wrong) as we see strict liability as the preferred option

A poll that has been voted on by supporters from a wide range of clubs, ages and backgrounds.

Do the BBC findings not highlight the disconnect between the clubs boardrooms and us fans?

237 fans is hardly a disconnect too anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

237 fans is hardly a disconnect too anything.

One thing is for sure, no sensible person wants things to go on as they are, something has to change, and if no other option is put forward then strict liability should be tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

One thing is for sure, no sensible person wants things to go on as they are, something has to change, and if no other option is put forward then strict liability should be tried.

I see the guy that threw his chair at the Aberdeen v sevco is up at court today hopefully he is banned from football for life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to the clubs, why would they publically come out in favour of something which hasn’t even been properly defined yet?

 

Fans and pundits can debate for hours about the concept of strict liability but until there is a concrete plan in place for it clubs will refrain from commenting and quite rightly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's fair. I also think many clubs would be concerned about how, exactly, it would be enforced. I'd certainly be a bit cautious about putting trust into the Scottish football authorities with things like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Principal Flutie said:

I'd see no problem with both.

Surely it would be on a game by case basis. Hibs' stewards failed to stop the ran bringing in the bottle. How were Aberdeen's stewards meant to stop the arsehole who broke a seat to throw?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Suspect Device said:

Surely it would be on a game by case basis. Hibs' stewards failed to stop the ran bringing in the bottle. How were Aberdeen's stewards meant to stop the arsehole who broke a seat to throw?

I'd say that's fair.

Certainly in the cases of items that shouldn't be in the crowd being thrown, that should go down as a club fine for both, and possibly pitch invasions as well, although I'd say that'd be a lesser punishment as it's harder to stop without having stewards covering every inch of the wall. But it's a hard one to draw the line with so there needs to be something in each case.

In every case, the club of the perpetrator gets punished. Should go without saying but there's no doubt certain clubs want nothing to do with that, as they'd suffer if any such laws were brought into the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

In fairness to the clubs, why would they publically come out in favour of something which hasn’t even been properly defined yet?

 

Fans and pundits can debate for hours about the concept of strict liability but until there is a concrete plan in place for it clubs will refrain from commenting and quite rightly.

 

 

I see it as the other way round. Clubs have to agree to bringing in strict liability, and then you get everyone round a table and thrash out what the rules and penalties are from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...