WBAUnofficial
One rule for one - Printable Version

+- WBAUnofficial (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk)
+-- Forum: WBAUnofficial (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: WBAUnofficial (https://wbaunofficial.org.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: One rule for one (/showthread.php?tid=2808)

Pages: 1 2


One rule for one - cornishbaggie - 03-15-2019

As usual it seems it's one rule for one and different for another. Arsenal and Blues have been charged with failing to control spectators and Blues has been charged for a spectator engaging in improper and violent conduct, didn't the guy that shoved Smalling engage in improper and violent conduct.

https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/uk-sports/2019/03/14/arsenal-and-birmingham-charged-after-spectators-encroach-pitches/


RE: One rule for one - Spandaubaggie - 03-15-2019

I'm all for parity, but the Blues incident was far more serious.


RE: One rule for one - YamYam - 03-15-2019

(03-15-2019, 12:24 PM)Spandaubaggie Wrote: I'm all for parity, but the Blues incident was far more serious.

No difference up until someone enters the field of play, then it's entirely down to the individual.

If one was "carrying", that'd be a difference between the clubs.


RE: One rule for one - Spandaubaggie - 03-15-2019

(03-15-2019, 12:36 PM)YamYam Wrote:
(03-15-2019, 12:24 PM)Spandaubaggie Wrote: I'm all for parity, but the Blues incident was far more serious.

No difference up until someone enters the field of play, then it's entirely down to the individual.

If one was "carrying", that'd be a difference between the clubs.
Fair point.


RE: One rule for one - CA Baggie - 03-15-2019

You can't blame the cub for the actions of the person once they're on the pitch. The fella at Arsenal could just as easy hit Smalling as the lad at Blues did. If they hit them with a bottle or knife them etc. then yes blame the club for lack of security.

Security should be such, at both these grounds, that a spectator can't get on the pitch and if they do so there's a quick response to apprehend them.

Unless there's previous for this behaviour then both clubs should get the same punishment, which for me would be 10-20% of turnover. A small fine of equal amounts will hurt Blues a lot more than Arsenal.


RE: One rule for one - Spandaubaggie - 03-15-2019

(03-15-2019, 12:39 PM)CA Baggie Wrote: You can't blame the cub for the actions of the person once they're on the pitch.  The fella at Arsenal could just as easy hit Smalling as the lad at Blues did.  If they hit them with a bottle or knife them etc. then yes blame the club for lack of security.

Security should be such, at both these grounds, that a spectator can't get on the pitch and if they do so there's a quick response to apprehend them.

Unless there's previous for this behaviour then both clubs should get the same punishment, which for me would be 10-20% of turnover.  A small fine of equal amounts will hurt Blues a lot more than Arsenal.
Perhaps, in light of the Blues incident, there will be much more awareness where even the public will take a harder stance and be more vigilant. It seems that idiot on Sunday has had an adverse effect on Blues and is hated by his own as much as Villa, bar a few morons of a similar ilk.

A 3 month jail sentence for the idiot on Sunday should sort out the morons.


RE: One rule for one - cornishbaggie - 03-15-2019

(03-15-2019, 12:24 PM)Spandaubaggie Wrote: I'm all for parity, but the Blues incident was far more serious.

Sorry Spandau, can't agree with that, they both entered the field of play and they both assaulted a player, that is all the F A should be interested in. The level of assault is a matter for the law.


RE: One rule for one - KratosBaggie - 03-15-2019

(03-15-2019, 01:35 PM)cornishbaggie Wrote:
(03-15-2019, 12:24 PM)Spandaubaggie Wrote: I'm all for parity, but the Blues incident was far more serious.

Sorry Spandau, can't agree with that, they both entered the field of play and they both assaulted a player, that is all the F A should be interested in. The level of assault is a matter for the law.

In terms of ensuring player safety, both clubs have failed equally in letting a spectator enter the field of play – so both should be equally punished. I am still at a loss as to what the stewards are there for if they can’t stop an individual fan entering the field of play. It’s very poor, and ultimately could cost a players life in the wrong circumstances. It is that serious.

The question here is; Should the punishment be based on the actions of the individual that the club cannot control? If the answer to that question is ‘yes’, then Blues are right to get punished more severely than Arsenal. 

The action of running up to a player, who is unaware the attack in coming and assaulting him from behind is, cowardly, and far more serious / dangerous than mocking an apposition player – not that the latter should be defended.


RE: One rule for one - cornishbaggie - 03-15-2019

(03-15-2019, 02:32 PM)KratosBaggie Wrote:
(03-15-2019, 01:35 PM)cornishbaggie Wrote:
(03-15-2019, 12:24 PM)Spandaubaggie Wrote: I'm all for parity, but the Blues incident was far more serious.

Sorry Spandau, can't agree with that, they both entered the field of play and they both assaulted a player, that is all the F A should be interested in. The level of assault is a matter for the law.

In terms of ensuring player safety, both clubs have failed equally in letting a spectator enter the field of play – so both should be equally punished. I am still at a loss as to what the stewards are there for if they can’t stop an individual fan entering the field of play. It’s very poor, and ultimately could cost a players life in the wrong circumstances. It is that serious.

The question here is; Should the punishment be based on the actions of the individual that the club cannot control? If the answer to that question is ‘yes’, then Blues are right to get punished more severely than Arsenal. 

The action of running up to a player, who is unaware the attack in coming and assaulting him from behind is, cowardly, and far more serious / dangerous than mocking an apposition player – not that the latter should be defended.

The Arsenal fan, pushed Smalling hence why he is being charged with common assault, so both instances a player has been assaulted, both instances are the same, the severity of the assaults are down to the law to deal with, not the F A.


RE: One rule for one - KratosBaggie - 03-15-2019

(03-15-2019, 02:42 PM)cornishbaggie Wrote:
(03-15-2019, 02:32 PM)KratosBaggie Wrote:
(03-15-2019, 01:35 PM)cornishbaggie Wrote:
(03-15-2019, 12:24 PM)Spandaubaggie Wrote: I'm all for parity, but the Blues incident was far more serious.

Sorry Spandau, can't agree with that, they both entered the field of play and they both assaulted a player, that is all the F A should be interested in. The level of assault is a matter for the law.

In terms of ensuring player safety, both clubs have failed equally in letting a spectator enter the field of play – so both should be equally punished. I am still at a loss as to what the stewards are there for if they can’t stop an individual fan entering the field of play. It’s very poor, and ultimately could cost a players life in the wrong circumstances. It is that serious.

The question here is; Should the punishment be based on the actions of the individual that the club cannot control? If the answer to that question is ‘yes’, then Blues are right to get punished more severely than Arsenal. 

The action of running up to a player, who is unaware the attack in coming and assaulting him from behind is, cowardly, and far more serious / dangerous than mocking an apposition player – not that the latter should be defended.

The Arsenal fan, pushed Smalling hence why he is being charged with common assault, so both instances a player has been assaulted, both instances are the same, the severity of the assaults are down to the law to deal with, not the F A.

I get your point, honestly I do. But to judge both fans and their actions and intentions as the same isn't fair.

One clearly had intentions of assault and dare I say injuring the opposition player. The other was mocking the opposition after the players side conceded a goal. 

Both are equally stupid and shouldn't happen on a football pitch. But one incident is more severe than the other.

Maybe I've read the second incident at the Emirates completely wrong?