Ajax -AZ abandoned through a hooligan

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Thoroughly enjoyed this thread and I think that the rule will be looked at and reshaped as to what is violent conduct against a supporter.

 

You may well be right (the Laws are reviewed annually in any event) but what might be clarified is the phrase "excessive force". I cannot see a different view of violent conduct applying to spectators, officials or other persons than players.

[Super_Ally 0]

First reply and frankly it leaves me disappointed that your "represent" Scottish fans BH. No confidence in you or the farce of SD. I didn't think before and certainly dont now think you have a clue what football fans really think. Too much PC bs.

[Super_Ally 0]

He kicked out and downed the guy in the first instance; I would say that that is defending yourself; but once the man is down (and the steward is almost there) IMHO kicking theman who is down is not self defence.

 

Must be nice to have lived your life where you've never been in a fight. The guy was on the floor, but if you don't take it "too far" as some seem to think he did, the guy would get up and continue his assault. The keeper needed to take it further and deter the guy from his continued assault.

[Super_Ally 0]

Here's another example.

 

I'm at work and for whatever reason, assaulted. As the attacker hits me he loses his balance and falls to the ground. Am I right to get my baton him and baton him once or even twice?

 

I would defend your right to give him a hiding and ensure he didn't have the opportunity to hit you again. If he ends up hurt well tough shit mate for assaulting someone else. So yeh, in my opinion you would be right.

[Super_Ally 0]

I also don't think you answered my earlier question about how many kicks would you deem, not excessive?

As many as is necessary is not excessive.

 

Is there anything in this country's laws specifically about how many strikes you are allowed to defend yourself? No. Stupid point as every situation is different.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'll try to answer all your points together if I may Super-Ally.

 

Firstly I was coming at this from my perspective as an ex-referee, which is what I thought was being asked of me; I just said at #90 that I understand that Pete (and others including your good self) are looking at it from a different perspective. I respect that point of view 100%.

 

The views that I express on here are my own and not those of SD unless I specifically state otherwise.

 

I do not "represent" Scottish fans. I am the Chair of the Scottish Council of SD, which has approx 15,000 members. We are, however, currently trying to become more representative of Scottish fans through the Scottish Football Supporters Network (SFSN). Directly or indirectly the total membership of SD/SFSN is now in excess of 63,000 and rising rapidly. More than 1,100 individuals alone have signed up through the current survey.

 

One thing that we are trying very hard to achieve at the moment is that the proposed new Code of Conduct or Fan's Charter that will be brought in from next season, gets the widest possible input and consultation with fans and that will start to happen in the new year.

 

You are correct that I am not a fighter and you are also correct of course that the question of "excessive force" on or off a football pitch is a matter of opinion for the football authorities or the courts.

 

I hope that clarifies my position and that of SD.

[Gazza_8 233]

S_A in patronising reply shocker!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

S_A in patronising reply shocker!

 

I try treat everyone on here the same Gazza, I don't know their history or background other than what I learn from their responses and it is of no matter to me, my personal views would be the same regardless. I just didn't want SDS tainted by a disagreement over personal views.

[GovanAllan 0]

He could have held him down without kicking him twice, he was about twice the size of the fan; and the stewards/police would have done the rest.

 

I hear you BH and to an extent I agree but from personal experience I know it doesn't take a big man to us a knife. So getting to close would be a bit dangerous, which is why I say put him down and keep him down or use Plan B and run like F*+k.

[pete 2,499]

I feel you contradict yourself a little by saying the threatening position of the keeper never gave him a chance to stand up and at the same time if the keeper put his body in range of the attacker then he would be putting himself in far more danger than keeping him on the ground with the threat of a kick. If the goalkeeper's threatening position was enough to prevent the spectator standing up, and in my opinion he realised right away that he had bitten off more than he could chew, then why did the keeper need to kick him twice or even once for that matter?

 

I also don't think you answered my earlier question about how many kicks would you deem, not excessive?

 

The Laws of the Game state, inter alia: A player is also guilty of violent conduct if he uses excessive force or brutality against a team-mate, spectator, match official or any other person. As they stand at present the laws don't further distinguish between a spectator in a passive role and one who has entered the field of play or attacks a player. What a about a spectator who attacks a match official or "other person"?

 

So I agree that it IS a matter of interpretation, of the phrase excessive force. I think you would agree that one punch, sometimes little more than a slap is regarded as excessive force, so what about two kicks when a man is lying on the ground, whether that is to keep him down when you appear to say that even the threat of that was enough to do that, or just because the keeper has lost the plot, which is my view.

 

You are right to point out that the Laws may well be changed in future (perhaps to define "excessive force") but I don't think they could distinguish between excessive force used against a player and excessive force used against any other person. However, as they stand right now, I still believe that the referee made the correct decision. If he had not sent the goalkeeper off, thus condoning the two kicks after the first kick/trip that brought the spectator down (which I agree was not excessive force) what kind of signal would that have sent to the goalkeeper or the rest of the players.

 

Put in a nutshell, my opinion is that the two kicks whilst the spectator was on the ground, constitute excessive force within the meaning of the Laws, therefore the keeper was guilty of violent conduct and was rightly sent off.

 

Lastly the Laws also remind referees that "violent conduct often leads to mass confrontation, therefore they must try to avert this with active intevention." I think that's exactly what the referee did. I think it is inconceivable that the referee could have allowed the goalkeeper's actions and not taken action against him.

 

However, I also accept that that is my view as a former refreee and you are coming at it from a different angle.

 

 

Firstly I will answer your question. I don't think you can say how many kicks are allowed. As long as the hooligan presented a danger I think the keeper had the right to keep using the minimum force necessary to keep the hooligan on the ground without putting himself in danger. If the situation had lasted 20 minutes then I think the keeper would be well within his rights to keep kicking him to stop him getting up. If the guy had put himself into a position where it was clear he was no longer a danger for example on his stomach with his arms in a stretched position then I totally agree then the kicks would then have been excessive.

 

I don't think I contradicted myself as the word threat in itself also has different ways of interpretation. If my wife says go and make the dinner or I will land one on you, while being a threat I know there is little chance of her really doing it.(I hope:D)

To put it better, If my father threatened to clip my ear when I was young then I knew the chance was high that he would do it so I would do as I was told. If my mother said the same thing then I wouldn't take it serious and end up winding her up.:devil:

 

If the keeper just stood back and said stay down or I will kick you, then i very much doubt it would have had the same effect as he in this situation achieved. The fact that the hooligan knew that the threat was real and kick was coming kept him spinning on the ground to avoid them.

I will agree that a kick anywhere near the head area would be totally excessive and open to prosecution from the police not just the referee.

 

I agree that the Ref handled within the present laws of the game but I do think that they are in this case flawed and there should be a distinction between a passive supporter or a supporter carrying a life threatening danger. I also think that the ref could have used some common sense in place of sticking to dye cast rules that could have caused a riot in another game.

 

Unfortunately these incidents seem to be on the up again, do these idiots not realise that they could get all the supporters behind those horrible fences again