SET PIECES: Incitement

Bench · Post by **Bench** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:31 am

Not really Trotters related.....

Incitement? thebish bares his arse....

http://www.the-wanderer.co.uk/article.p ... cle_id=451

Zulus Thousand of em · Post by **Zulus Thousand of em** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:30 pm

Brilliant! One of the best articles posted in a while. More please.

Bruce Rioja · Post by **Bruce Rioja** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:25 pm

Superb article, Bish. One thing I've noticed of late, confirmed by the Barton incident and something that is perhaps inadvertently supported in your piece, is that an extemely high percentage of these 'we can give it but we can't take it' incidents involve Scousers. Let's also not forget Mr Rooney having a mobile phone flung at his head by a member of The Kop ensemble after having the temerity to have scored in front them, thus bringing a temporary halt to their retlentless abuse.
I'm not having a pop at the Scousers, just saying it how it appears to me. Goodness me, could their 'Unique sense of humour TM' actually be complete and utter bollocks, after all?

Montreal Wanderer · Post by **Montreal Wanderer** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:51 pm

Good stuff, bish. Over here it is something of the opposite. Sports have cheerleaders to incite fans and athletes are always playing to the gallery. In the NFL one wide rfeceiver put a cell phone in the padding of the goal post and when he scored took it out and made a call to his mother (he might have goit fined for that). There is however one difference. There are not in any professional sport as far as I am aware "away" stands, where opposition fans are caged (I found the Marseilles stand pictures a bit horrifying). There is not often any trouble between fans of opposing teams who are scattered throughout the seating - perhaps the odd fight involving two individuals. Therefore no theatrics could be said to be taunting away fans (unless an entire stadium when one is away).

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:33 pm

Great article! I like the bit at the end about the "but I'm paying their wages, don't you know" brigade. I like to counter that by saying I'm off to piss over the dugout because I am, after all, paying their wages, so they can jolly well put up with a good piss-soak. I never knew that about the guy Cantona kicked, the thing that I always liked about that was that he seemed to flail around a bit afterwards like a washed-up fish (and to be honest, it wasn't *that* violent):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sjWyLyj7rE

warthog · Post by **warthog** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:35 pm

It’s a matter of striking the right balance between allowing players to celebrate whilst preventing them doing things that jeopardise their safety and that of the crowd.

The football authorities haven’t got it right and neither has the writer of this article.

Gary Neville’s actions are indefensible. At some point, that sort of brain dead behaviour will result in a pitch invasion, and when that happens you can bet that those injured will be the fans who stay in their seats and get trampled on in the process. Paul Gascoigne’s behaviour was crass, ignorant and irresponsible. A pity that he didn’t get the punch between the eyes that he so richly deserved.

Some of us can remember watching football from behind fences. We also recall that they were erected, not to keep the fans separate, but to protect the players. I don’t fancy going to back to that, but it seems there are those that do.

thebish · Post by **thebish** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:24 pm

If I were totally honest, Warty, some of it was tongue-in-cheek - but, even thinking about it now that Barton's bottie is a (thankfully) faded memory, I still think the pendulum has swung too far away from players being able to express themselves...

here's my dominating thought..

if Neville thrusts his pelvis in front of the Liverpool fans and subsequently a big fat tattooed scally leaps out of his seat and wobbles towards the front knocking over a little lad in the process - is Neville to blame for the lad's cuts and bruises??

I think this is a really difficult argument to sustain. Yon big fattie has to be responsible for his own actions surely??

If we begin to allow the idea that fans cannot be held responsible for their actions - than we open the door to a nasty-looking world.

If we extend this kind of argument - then all opposition fans who join in with inflammatory chanting are responsible for any ensuing anger and nastiness...

what if you (Warty) chant with the crowd "twoooooooooooo - niiiiiiil" at the Liverpool fans - and one of them gets really cross and chucks a brick that he has secreted down his pants - and it hits an old lady on the head...

are you (Warty) to blame??

if not - why not? - and where do you then draw the line with this slippery word "incitement"?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:20 am

warthog · Post by **warthog** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:49 pm

thebish wrote:If I were totally honest, Warty, some of it was tongue-in-cheek - but, even thinking about it now that Barton's bottie is a (thankfully) faded memory, I still think the pendulum has swung too far away from players being able to express themselves...

here's my dominating thought..

if Neville thrusts his pelvis in front of the Liverpool fans and subsequently a big fat tattooed scally leaps out of his seat and wobbles towards the front knocking over a little lad in the process - is Neville to blame for the lad's cuts and bruises??

I think this is a really difficult argument to sustain. Yon big fattie has to be responsible for his own actions surely??

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Both Neville and the fat scally in the scenario you describe. In Neville's case, it's a matter of considering the possible consequence of his own actions, but it's clear that he's too thick to do that.

Running 50 yards towards 3,000 scousers, who already hate you, to indulge (note that last word) in an act of in your face incitement, is stupid at best and sickeningly irresponsible at worst. Why is it ok for a player to act in such a way that it makes the jobs of stewards and the police more difficult? Why is it so important that a player be allowed 'express' himself this way?

Where do you draw the line? What behaviour from a player towards the fans would you find unacceptable?

CAPSLOCK · Post by **CAPSLOCK** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:53 pm

Does it matter whether it's Viles fault or not

We could have 100s crushed to death

So while the clever folk discuss the rights and wrongs of bum fluffs actions, we'll leave the families to mourn their loved ones

GazNevs actions were indefensible

thebish · Post by **thebish** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:28 pm

warthog wrote:
thebish wrote:If I were totally honest, Warty, some of it was tongue-in-cheek - but, even thinking about it now that Barton's bottie is a (thankfully) faded memory, I still think the pendulum has swung too far away from players being able to express themselves...

here's my dominating thought..

if Neville thrusts his pelvis in front of the Liverpool fans and subsequently a big fat tattooed scally leaps out of his seat and wobbles towards the front knocking over a little lad in the process - is Neville to blame for the lad's cuts and bruises??

I think this is a really difficult argument to sustain. Yon big fattie has to be responsible for his own actions surely??

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Both Neville and the fat scally in the scenario you describe. In Neville's case, it's a matter of considering the possible consequence of his own actions, but it's clear that he's too thick to do that.

Running 50 yards towards 3,000 scousers, who already hate you, to indulge (note that last word) in an act of in your face incitement, is stupid at best and sickeningly irresponsible at worst. Why is it ok for a player to act in such a way that it makes the jobs of stewards and the police more difficult? Why is it so important that a player be allowed 'express' himself this way?

Where do you draw the line? What behaviour from a player towards the fans would you find unacceptable?

I don't think I'm drawing lines just yet.. just interested in the discussion at the moment..

I would ask what the difference between "cupping hand over ear" and what Neville did was.. The only difference seems to be that he ran a long way in order to do it.

so - is it less of an incitement if you happen to score near the away fans - so that you naturally run past them as you wheel away from the goalmouth... probably it is.. but that's what Lampard got his yellow card for

also - is it more of an incitement because it is Gary Neville - probably...

as for crushing - there's a real objection - and (yes) I am plenty old enough to remember getting my spleen crushed to buggery against stand-barriers - but is this quite such a danger nowadays in our all-seater stadiums? I'm not so sure.. but I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise.

beer_swiller · Post by **beer_swiller** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:34 pm

Robbie Savage, yes we also had one bared his bum every home game after encouragement from the Burnden terrace in the 80s, nothing was said about that. These days political correctness has just about gone too far.

Beer swiller

Nozza · Post by **Nozza** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:09 pm

I think it was someone on here made the point that everytime you see a game in Liverpool, the fans are always giving the opposing players the "V's and Wanker signs", someone was bound to react. Yorke did it some ignorant racist nice people last season, Cantona did it. Whether the players are right or wrong in reacting, it is human nature. No player is a robot. Rooney scored at the Kop, and celebrated the same way I would have done if I'd scored infront of the Gallowgate, its natural. Fans are quick to dish it out, but when someone reacts, they moan. They - or we - can't have it both ways.

FWIW, I do think Nevilles actions were justified, as were Rooneys, Bartons and any other player who has "cupped" their ear. Footballers are humans, not machines. My Season Ticket (IMO) gives me the right to give opposing players stick, but if one reacted I would deserve it.

Connect with your social network account

SET PIECES: Incitement

SET PIECES: Incitement

Who is online