Rage Online

Life ban?!?!?!?!
Have a day off Mooro please!

p.s. When is the next #oufc fans forum due and will WPL publish what they briefly show on the big screen like this excellent bit of communication.

http://www.wst.org.uk/www2/images/stori ... 1_2013.pdf

At least the FAW agrees with me....sort of....a bit:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed ... an-1558096


Mind You, 'spoilt nancy boy' wasnt the exact phrase that came to my mind to describe him

Article in the Daily Mail comparing the (potential) punishment for Hazard compared to the Matt Ritchie incident. A mention for some forum nobody included

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... amuel.html

&quotMooro&quot wrote:I'm entirely serious about the life ban from all games - many times on here and the other side we have discussed the rules about supporters encroaching onto the field of play resulting in a ban, potentially for life, particularly if they interfere with the game/players etc.

I suppose by that logic you'd want to ban the Oldham fans who euphorically ran onto the pitch at the full-time whistle yesterday...?

&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:Article in the Daily Mail comparing the (potential) punishment for Hazard compared to the Matt Ritchie incident. A mention for some forum nobody included

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... amuel.html

How did the Daily Mail pick up on this story, and also the angry fan with his letter to the FA?

&quotslappy&quot wrote:

&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:Article in the Daily Mail comparing the (potential) punishment for Hazard compared to the Matt Ritchie incident. A mention for some forum nobody included

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... amuel.html

How did the Daily Mail pick up on this story, and also the angry fan with his letter to the FA?

I have no idea. But the only place I posted the text of the correspondence with the FA was on this very forum!

Seems like quite a piece of investigative journalism, to know about the incident in the first place, track down an Oxford Mail match report, a facebook group, and the angry fan's letter.

&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:Article in the Daily Mail comparing the (potential) punishment for Hazard compared to the Matt Ritchie incident. A mention for some forum nobody included

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/articl ... amuel.html

Ha, you are Martin Samuels and I claim my five pounds!

&quotJoey's Toe&quot wrote:

&quotMooro&quot wrote:I'm entirely serious about the life ban from all games - many times on here and the other side we have discussed the rules about supporters encroaching onto the field of play resulting in a ban, potentially for life, particularly if they interfere with the game/players etc.

I suppose by that logic you'd want to ban the Oldham fans who euphorically ran onto the pitch at the full-time whistle yesterday...?

No, our discussions have often focused on two types of encroachment and the appropriate penalties: i) mass full-time pitch invasions, which although are technically illegal opinion is typically that they should not result in bans as long as people behave while on the pitch, and ii) individuals whose sole intent is to deliberately do something to specifically antagonise players/officials and in some cases oppostion fans to the detrement of the game and/or occasion, hence my comment 'particularly if they interfere with teh game/players'. An example the guy who got right into the face of Peter Enkleman after he'd let in that bizarre throw-in own goal in the Villa Birmingham game many years ago and other incidents where someone has run on and threatened or attacked players or officials. (There is a 3rd type, I guess, which are mass invasions DURING a game, which remain a greyer area, but not entirely relevent here).

I would class matey-boy as definately in type (ii) made worse by the fact that he did so from a position of responsibility, rather than from out of the crowd. As I say, I have no issue with Hazard being punished, albeit not sure it should go beyond the three games, but I am not happy to see this guy still regarded by many in the same revered status as would have been for some starry-eyed 8 year old who got vollleyed into the stand for fumbling a catch OR as the trailblazer for a string of copy cat incidents in weeks to come from those that see him get no punishment, a massive twitter following and players and officials of a big club grovelling to him in order to avoid a lawsuit...

You what? Nobody's 'revering' him. Everyone's saying he was an idiot. It's just no-one else thinks he should be punished for the rest of his life. Really, it was heat of the moment, it was stupid, but it was quite amusing. It didn't alter the result of a football match. He didn't invade the pitch or even interfere with the game as you claim - he was returning the ball to the Swansea goalkeeper, albeit slowly and clumsily. Hazard was unnecessarily interfering in that process - it was a Swansea goal kick, not a Chelsea ball.

Mooro - a reasoned response, and actually your views chime with mine.

However, your post referenced &quotthe rules&quot (ie, ground regs) which forbid anyone to enter the pitch - and sadly, there are zealots at the FA and certain clubs who view all encroachment as being &quotthe same&quot, despite there being a clear qualitative difference (as outlined in your post) between different types of pitch invasions. Which is why I get so cross when asinine and puritanical commentators get their knickers in a twist (as they did at the weekend) about people going on the pitch when actually that can be a really lovely thing which shows how wonderful football can be.

Chelsea have successfully argued against Hazard's ban being extended.

I see one of our ballboys provoked the Southend goalkeeper into a tussle for the ball on Saturday. I saw someone said the other day that KR seems to be asking his players to learn to "cheat" a bit more.

Whilst we are still in a precarious position near the foot of the table, I guess three points is what mattered, but I hope we aren't going down the route of having ball boys messing around giving the ball back, as well as time wasting and fake injuries. I've noticed a couple of times we had players going back to the technical areas during a break in play. Westley tactics?

slappy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 16, 2018 2:39 pm I see one of our ballboys provoked the Southend goalkeeper into a tussle for the ball on Saturday. I saw someone said the other day that KR seems to be asking his players to learn to "cheat" a bit more.

Whilst we are still in a precarious position near the foot of the table, I guess three points is what mattered, but I hope we aren't going down the route of having ball boys messing around giving the ball back, as well as time wasting and fake injuries. I've noticed a couple of times we had players going back to the technical areas during a break in play. Westley tactics?

There's a fine line, isn't there? I've no major issue with standard 'game management' - eg, playing it into the corners when you're in the final five minutes defending a one-goal lead, taking your time over goal-kicks, unnecessary substitutions to wind down the clock etc. But when you get into the realm of players feigning or exaggerating injury for prolonged breaks and tactical advice, or giving time-wasting instructions to ballboys, it's taking the piss a bit. As fans, I think we all know where that line is drawn, and it amazes me that some managers and referees can't or won't recognise it.