Watch as Rangers fans appear to throw seats at Aberdeen fans

[ian1964 10,596]

Two footie fans nicked after red-hot clash between Aberdeen and Rangers

 

TWO football fans have been nicked after Sunday's powderkeg Premiership clash between Aberdeen and Rangers.

 

Cops today confirmed a 25-year-old man from Aberdeen was arrested after allegedly being caught in possession of a pyrotechnic.

 

While a 22-year-old male from Glasgow was charged regarding offensive behaviour within a football stadium.

 

Reports have been sent to the Procurator Fiscal.

 

Chief Superintendent Thomson said: "As anticipated the vast majority of fans who attended Pittodrie on Sunday acted in a safe and responsible manner which assisted officers in ensuring the safety of those in attendance and the wider public.

 

"I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their support.

 

"In saying this, and despite repeated warnings from Police Scotland in the lead-up to match, I am extremely disappointed that a very small minority of fans chose to conduct themselves in an anti-social and completely unacceptable way.

 

 

"I understand that feelings run high at these events, however such behaviour is inexcusable.

 

"It also creates significant security issues which put your own safety and the safety of others at risk.

 

"For those who have committed offences and were not detected at the time I can assure you that you will face the consequences of your actions.

 

"Retrospective enquiries are being carried out and we have a dedicated team working in partnership with both clubs to identify those people in the stadium and outwith who let not only themselves down but their clubs too."

 

We told today how an Aberdeen fan was hit by a flying chair after yesterday's 2-1 win over Rangers.

 

Video footage shows a seat being hurled and striking the supporter on the head after James Maddison's late free-kick won the match for the Dons.

 

A probe has also been launched after sick vandals scratched a vile slur about the Ibrox disaster on the Rangers team bus before the Pittodrie league clash.

 

Club staff woke up to discover 'Ibrox 71' scratched into the vehicle at the Ardoe Hotel in the city.

 

The graffiti is believed to be a sick jibe at the Ibrox Disaster on January 2 1971 in which 66 fans were crushed to death at the end of an Old Firm game.

 

Anyone with any information should contact Police on 101 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555111.

 

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/7240350/Two-footie-fans-nicked-after-red-hot-clash-between-Aberdeen-and-Rangers.html

[calscot 0]

So, IF TRUE, much like the SC Final where "Had HIbs fans not encroached on the pitch then Rangers fans wouldn't have either" this one is a case of "If a Rangers fan hadn't decided to launch a chair at Aberdeen fans then the Aberdeen fans wouldn't have attempted launching it back". Cant have it both ways.

 

Sorry JFK but I am struggling to find in what way it is "enlightening".

 

Again, IF TRUE, then the Rangers fan should never have launched it. It really is that simple.

 

Again while the throwing of the chair by a Rangers fan is pretty bad, there is no equivalence with the Rangers fans reacting to the goading of Hibs fans. The Rangers fans gave the Hibs fans exactly what they asked for, the Hibs fans were guilty in the incitement and wanted Rangers fans to come at them. No innocent Hibs fans were involved. The Rangers fans could be equated to a country being invaded and the home nation doing some token fighting back against the army of aggressors.

 

To be equivalent with the chair, it would have to be thrown back only at the person who threw it - with no innocents involved. Instead it was thrown indiscriminately, with no regard for innocents. This is the equivalent of a terrorist attack on country, with that country then indiscriminately and wrecklessly attacking the nation the terrorist is from but in doing so, they accidentally kill their own people.

 

Morally, both are bad, but they are not equivalent.

Edited September 27, 2016 by calscot

[calscot 0]

This may be enlightening, a comment on the video.

 

That has a plausible ring to it with regards to the video.

[craig 5,199]

Again while the throwing of the chair by a Rangers fan is pretty bad, there is no equivalence with the Rangers fans reacting to the goading of Hibs fans. The Rangers fans gave the Hibs fans exactly what they asked for, the Hibs fans were guilty in the incitement and wanted Rangers fans to come at them. No innocent Hibs fans were involved. The Rangers fans could be equated to a country being invaded and the home nation doing some token fighting back against the army of aggressors.

 

To be equivalent with the chair, it would have to be thrown back only at the person who threw it - with no innocents involved. Instead it was thrown indiscriminately, with no regard for innocents. This is the equivalent of a terrorist attack on country, with that country then indiscriminately and wrecklessly attacking the nation the terrorist is from but in doing so, they accidentally kill their own people.

 

Morally, both are bad, but they are not equivalent.

 

You make the assumption that every single Hibs fan was inciting the Rangers fans. Whilst many were I am quite sure that a great deal more were actually celebrating their victory. eg, those climbing the goalposts at the end where the winner was scored could hardly be goading Rangers fans more than 100 yards away. And, yes, the likelihood is that given the "pitch geography" of combatants that the fighting would have been between willing participants.

 

Suffice it to say though that I believe you are splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs. You can say they aren't equivalent all you like. However, the general thrust on here when it all happened was "If Hibs fans hadn't encroached on the pitch then Rangers fans would never have entered the field of play". Therefore, as that was said in abundance then they ARE equivalent.

 

How do you know that the chair was thrown back indiscriminately ? Were you there ?

 

Either way it is quite simple.... at least to me....

 

Quite simply :

 

1. Had Hibs fans not encroached the field of play then Rangers fans wouldn't have encroached either (as was the general consensus on here at the time and subsequently).

2. Had a Rangers fan not launched a chair at the Aberdeen fans then the Aberdeen fans wouldn't have launched it back.

 

It really is that simple. And they are equivalent.

 

If you wish to split hairs and argue semantics then be my guest - but the simple reality is that without the instigating event the retaliatory event doesn't happen. Yes, it is that simple.

 

I'm all for defending Rangers fans but, yet again, IF TRUE, we have this ridiculous tendency of shooting ourselves in the foot at every opportunity.

 

Also, IF TRUE, and we would do very well to remember this...... this incident allows Aberdeen, the media and the rest of Scottish football to dilute the quite horrific referencing to the deaths of 66 people with the etchings on the team bus. It allows all those aforementioned to alter the message from #badAberdeen to #badRangers.

 

We only have ourselves to blame,

[SteveC 150]

You make the assumption that every single Hibs fan was inciting the Rangers fans. Whilst many were I am quite sure that a great deal more were actually celebrating their victory. eg, those climbing the goalposts at the end where the winner was scored could hardly be goading Rangers fans more than 100 yards away. And, yes, the likelihood is that given the "pitch geography" of combatants that the fighting would have been between willing participants.

 

Suffice it to say though that I believe you are splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs. You can say they aren't equivalent all you like. However, the general thrust on here when it all happened was "If Hibs fans hadn't encroached on the pitch then Rangers fans would never have entered the field of play". Therefore, as that was said in abundance then they ARE equivalent.

 

How do you know that the chair was thrown back indiscriminately ? Were you there ?

 

Either way it is quite simple.... at least to me....

 

Quite simply :

 

1. Had Hibs fans not encroached the field of play then Rangers fans wouldn't have encroached either (as was the general consensus on here at the time and subsequently).

2. Had a Rangers fan not launched a chair at the Aberdeen fans then the Aberdeen fans wouldn't have launched it back.

 

It really is that simple. And they are equivalent.

 

If you wish to split hairs and argue semantics then be my guest - but the simple reality is that without the instigating event the retaliatory event doesn't happen. Yes, it is that simple.

 

I'm all for defending Rangers fans but, yet again, IF TRUE, we have this ridiculous tendency of shooting ourselves in the foot at every opportunity.

 

Also, IF TRUE, and we would do very well to remember this...... this incident allows Aberdeen, the media and the rest of Scottish football to dilute the quite horrific referencing to the deaths of 66 people with the etchings on the team bus. It allows all those aforementioned to alter the message from #badAberdeen to #badRangers.

 

We only have ourselves to blame,

 

Do we know that's what happened though Craig? Could it not have been an Aberdeen fan who first threw it (especially given that folk are saying our seats were red?) and then we threw it back? Apologies if I have missed something but that's what I thought had been proposed as having happened.

[calscot 0]

You make the assumption that every single Hibs fan was inciting the Rangers fans. Whilst many were I am quite sure that a great deal more were actually celebrating their victory. eg, those climbing the goalposts at the end where the winner was scored could hardly be goading Rangers fans more than 100 yards away. And, yes, the likelihood is that given the "pitch geography" of combatants that the fighting would have been between willing participants.

 

For me, anyone who crossed the halfway line has lost reasonable doubt in guilt of incitement, with the excuse of celebration. I would need something to convince me that any of the fans that fought with or were attacked by Rangers fans were even close to being completely innocent. There is still a massive difference to that rather than throwing a chair into a crowd because one unknown person threw it first.

 

Suffice it to say though that I believe you are splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs. You can say they aren't equivalent all you like.

 

Maybe you like it better in black and white but when the shades of grey are so far apart I'm not going to find a truthy with the equality operator. If you can't see it then that's up to you; I think I explained it clearly enough. Splitting hairs it isn't, and I hoped you'd at least get a bit of the point.

 

However, the general thrust on here when it all happened was "If Hibs fans hadn't encroached on the pitch then Rangers fans would never have entered the field of play". Therefore, as that was said in abundance then they ARE equivalent.

 

It's boiling down to very basic stuff, where you could maybe start saying, if Rangers hadn't acted in some way (and there are several to choose from) then the Hibs fans wouldn't be on the pitch. But to me, it's more complicated than that and it's about the severity and understand-ability of the crime.

 

If a gang attacks your family and then starts repeatedly taunting and goading you, would it be ever so slightly understandable that you lost it and clocked one of them?

 

Now, if a chair came flying over from a crowd of people and hit your family, would it be slightly understandable if you picked it up and threw it back into the crowd? And then how understandable would it be if you failed and hit one of your own?

 

 

How do you know that the chair was thrown back indiscriminately ? Were you there ?

 

Come on, be sensible. Apart from the incomprehensible view that throwing a chair at someone in a crowd can be somehow discriminate, we're talking about a scenario, which may not be true, that an Aberdeen fan was hit accidentally by a fellow fan - yeah, it was really discriminate...

 

You're really stretching it here - is it so hard to see the point that you resort to this?

 

Either way it is quite simple.... at least to me....

 

Quite simply :

 

1. Had Hibs fans not encroached the field of play then Rangers fans wouldn't have encroached either (as was the general consensus on here at the time and subsequently).

2. Had a Rangers fan not launched a chair at the Aberdeen fans then the Aberdeen fans wouldn't have launched it back.

 

I completely agree that it's a very simplistic way of looking at it. In assessing human nature and morality, there are obvious complexities that aren't hard to work out.

 

I'll say again, if a guy gets in a fight after running 100m to start one (or pretend to start one), I have a LOT less sympathy for any injuries than someone innocent who gets clocked by a chair because someone else threw it first. You must at least see that point of view even if you don't agree with it surely?

 

It really is that simple. And they are equivalent.

 

You're entitled to think in that way, I just wanted to point out that there is an alternative, less simple, view.

 

If you wish to split hairs and argue semantics then be my guest -

 

Eh, where did I argue semantics? I'm arguing degrees of morality. If you think something so chalk and cheese in that regard is splitting hairs then I can't help you.

 

but the simple reality is that without the instigating event the retaliatory event doesn't happen. Yes, it is that simple.

 

I'm all for defending Rangers fans but,

 

Who is defending Rangers fans? Read my post - I'm defining the morality, my morals stay the same no matter who we're talking about. Why are you being so unfair to Rangers fans and equating their crimes with far worse crimes? And why do you have to accuse me of bias, just because I don't agree with you?

 

yet again, IF TRUE, we have this ridiculous tendency of shooting ourselves in the foot at every opportunity.

 

I have no disagreement with that and have argued this online for decades. There seems to be a likelihood that a Rangers fan threw a seat into the opposition fans, I find that deplorable and hope he gets caught and dealt with severely - there is no excuse at all for that kind of behaviour in this context. However, this is an obvious case of two wrongs don't make a right and I also hope if an Aberdeen fan threw it back, gets the same just desserts - there is no mitigation of provocation in this case due to the indiscriminate nature of it and the massively high risk to innocent people.

 

Also, IF TRUE, and we would do very well to remember this...... this incident allows Aberdeen, the media and the rest of Scottish football to dilute the quite horrific referencing to the deaths of 66 people with the etchings on the team bus. It allows all those aforementioned to alter the message from #badAberdeen to #badRangers.

 

We only have ourselves to blame,

 

Again, I agree, and as I said have been advocating for us to be better behaved that everyone else for decades. If we want to think of ourselves as the best fans, we need to be the best fans. Now that is pretty simple.

[calscot 0]

Do we know that's what happened though Craig? Could it not have been an Aberdeen fan who first threw it (especially given that folk are saying our seats were red?) and then we threw it back? Apologies if I have missed something but that's what I thought had been proposed as having happened.

 

I think we've established that due to the location of the fans, and the colour of the seat, that it was a lot more likely to have originated from the Rangers fans' side of the fence.

[craig 5,199]

Do we know that's what happened though Craig? Could it not have been an Aberdeen fan who first threw it (especially given that folk are saying our seats were red?) and then we threw it back? Apologies if I have missed something but that's what I thought had been proposed as having happened.

 

We don't Steve - I have previously stated IF TRUE. I probably should have again for the avoidance of doubt

[craig 5,199]

For me, anyone who crossed the halfway line has lost reasonable doubt in guilt of incitement, with the excuse of celebration. I would need something to convince me that any of the fans that fought with or were attacked by Rangers fans were even close to being completely innocent. There is still a massive difference to that rather than throwing a chair into a crowd because one unknown person threw it first.

 

As I said, given the geography of where they were it is easy enough to contend they were inciting. However, have you ever had kids where you tell them not to do something or go somewhere and they simply don't listen ? There were kids who were on that pitch (who also shouldn't have been....) so how do you know, given the number of people on the pitch, that some of those kids weren't running amok in excitement at having won the cup and ended up past the halfway line ? I don't think we realistically could argue that kids were inciting behaviors. So there is at least the possibility that some innocents were in the Rangers half of the pitch.

 

Either way, as I said originally, it is more than likely that the Hibs fans were indeed inciting and more than likely were willing combatants. But that misses the point, which I will get to.

 

Maybe you like it better in black and white but when the shades of grey are so far apart I'm not going to find a truthy with the equality operator. If you can't see it then that's up to you; I think I explained it clearly enough. Splitting hairs it isn't, and I hoped you'd at least get a bit of the point.

 

You explain everything clearly enough - but in so doing you almost overlook the actual premise of what is being stated. You cant, in the one instance say "Had Hibs not come on the pitch then Rangers wouldn't either" and then say "the Aberdeen fan shouldn't have thrown the chair back" (which they shouldn't....) - however, in BOTH instances we need to look at cause and effect.

 

If you wish do dig deeper into the morality of both that is your discussion to have. The point that I was making, which I thought was abundantly clear, but apparently not, is that you cant have two situations where there is a cause and effect whereby fans of one team did something and caused a reaction - and then have the same thing in reverse - and claim some moral high ground (not you...) or claim that the reaction somehow justified the cause.

 

My point was very simple. It looked to me as if JFK was justifying the Rangers fans action because an Aberdeen fan reacted to it. When, in the SC final.... we didn't justify Hibs fans actions (rightly) because of the reaction of the Rangers fans. Though.... that said... this is exactly what the Scottish media did..

 

Fans of one club did something that they shouldn't have. The opposing fans reacted, which they shouldn't have. Both wrongs. (SC final). Same thing happened at the weekend (IF TRUE) and, therefore, you CAN equate the two situations.

 

As said, if you wish to dig deeper go right ahead. But at its very base, it is very simple. In BOTH instances, if there is no ACTION, there is no REACTION. Degrees of morality are almost irrelevant to me because if the action didn't take place then we have nothing to even debate, which is as it should be.

 

It's boiling down to very basic stuff, where you could maybe start saying, if Rangers hadn't acted in some way (and there are several to choose from) then the Hibs fans wouldn't be on the pitch. But to me, it's more complicated than that and it's about the severity and understand-ability of the crime.

 

If a gang attacks your family and then starts repeatedly taunting and goading you, would it be ever so slightly understandable that you lost it and clocked one of them?

 

Now, if a chair came flying over from a crowd of people and hit your family, would it be slightly understandable if you picked it up and threw it back into the crowd? And then how understandable would it be if you failed and hit one of your own?

 

If its boiling down to very basic stuff then it is, again, simple. Either all instances were wrong or they weren't. That is as simple as it gets. It is actually you that is attempting to make it a more complex issue than it is.

 

What the Hibs fans did was wrong in the SC final, yes ?

What the Rangers fans did was wrong in the SC final by retaliating, yes ?

What the Rangers fan allegedly did at the weekend was wrong, yes ?

What the Aberdeen fan did in retaliation was wrong, yes ?

 

Can it be any more basic than that ??

 

So you are understanding of the Aberdeen fan throwing the chair back ? That is fair enough. Personally I think they were wrong to do so and should have let the stewards and police deal with it. But that also misses the point. If you look at JFK's post (sorry JFK for using your post again) it looks, to me at least, when saying "this is enlightening" that it is somehow justifying the Rangers fan because they got a reaction (though I am sure JFK didn't mean that). In essence, looked to me like justifying the action through the reaction, not justifying the reaction as you have done above.

 

Maybe I'm just not being clear enough - what you are posting above is justifying the reaction - which, again is fair enough. But in JFK's post it looked like the ACTION was being justified or explained away, not the reaction,

 

Again though, this is why I see it as splitting hairs. In every single instance, whether you can understand the reaction or not, the actions of all 4 sets of fans was wrong. In both situations had there not been an initial action then we would have no cause to be speaking about reactions.

 

If you wish to equate the levels of morality that is up to you and also wasn't something I was even looking at.

 

Come on, be sensible. Apart from the incomprehensible view that throwing a chair at someone in a crowd can be somehow discriminate, we're talking about a scenario, which may not be true, that an Aberdeen fan was hit accidentally by a fellow fan - yeah, it was really discriminate...

 

You're really stretching it here - is it so hard to see the point that you resort to this?

 

Either way it is quite simple.... at least to me....

 

Seriously ? I can guarantee you that you CAN be discriminate in throwing a chair at someone. Just because you miss them doesn't mean you weren't aiming at them. That, by definition, is being discriminate. And the reason I asked if you were there is because, without being there, you simply weren't in the mind of the Aberdeen fan. You don't know whether he said "let me launch this chair at those hun bastards" or whether he said "it was that guy there that threw the chair so let me throw it right back at him".

 

You do realize that the result of the throwing is nothing to do with whether the INTENT was discriminate or indiscriminate, right ? It is the intent that determines if someone is being discriminate or not, not the result.

 

It is quite simple, to me at least.

 

 

 

I completely agree that it's a very simplistic way of looking at it. In assessing human nature and morality, there are obvious complexities that aren't hard to work out.

 

The only morality I was even considering was whether it was morally OK for us to justify the actions of our fans through the reaction of others (on Sunday) whilst doing the exact opposite in the SC final. Some would be so bold as to call that hypocrisy.....

 

I'll say again, if a guy gets in a fight after running 100m to start one (or pretend to start one), I have a LOT less sympathy for any injuries than someone innocent who gets clocked by a chair because someone else threw it first. You must at least see that point of view even if you don't agree with it surely?

 

Of course I see the point of view. But it wasn't what I was getting at, not at all. I agree with it. But it doesn't change the hypocritical nature of looking at both events and seeing the similarities, yet taking opposing positions.

 

 

You're entitled to think in that way, I just wanted to point out that there is an alternative, less simple, view.

 

Which is obviously fair enough, and one that is your prerogative, or anyone else's, to take.

 

Eh, where did I argue semantics? I'm arguing degrees of morality. If you think something so chalk and cheese in that regard is splitting hairs then I can't help you.

 

I found it semantic. If you don't, no problem, we move on.

 

Who is defending Rangers fans? Read my post - I'm defining the morality, my morals stay the same no matter who we're talking about. Why are you being so unfair to Rangers fans and equating their crimes with far worse crimes? And why do you have to accuse me of bias, just because I don't agree with you?

 

I never said you were defending Rangers fans, now you are just taking something out of context. No, in fact, you are taking something that was aimed in general at how we try to defend the action through the reaction (again....) to assume that the comment was aimed at you. It wasn't.

 

Far worse crimes ? Launching a chair could cause serious damage to someone. Serious damage. A riot in the middle of the pitch could cause serious damage to someone. Serious damage. Sorry, but I just don't see it as "far worse crimes". Why is it unfair on Rangers fans ? I wasn't equating the morality of either incident, only you were doing that. I was addressing what looked like the hypocritical nature of defending our actions in the same way we lambasted those of Hibs. If you cant see that as hypocritical then that is your truck, not mine.

 

As for accusing you of bias, I refer you to the previous statement that I wasn't talking about you. If you read it that way, my apologies. But you shouldn't always assume someone is talking about you just because they quote your post.

 

I have no disagreement with that and have argued this online for decades. There seems to be a likelihood that a Rangers fan threw a seat into the opposition fans, I find that deplorable and hope he gets caught and dealt with severely - there is no excuse at all for that kind of behaviour in this context. However, this is an obvious case of two wrongs don't make a right and I also hope if an Aberdeen fan threw it back, gets the same just desserts - there is no mitigation of provocation in this case due to the indiscriminate nature of it and the massively high risk to innocent people.

 

Very few would disagree. They aren't the issue. The issue is the few who do stupid things to put us on the front pages. One recent example being the now regular use of pyrotechnics. Absolutely bloody pointless and with no place in a football stadium. Yet we have idiots that persist in them.. It isn't smart, it isn't hard, it isn't fun for those nearby, it isn't enhancing the entertainment value. It is moronic. Yet we still have some who do it and probably for that beloved "freedom of speech" - that's all well and good until the Club suffer because of it or because in releasing the pyrotechnic you cause some kid beside you to suffer an asthma attack thanks to the inhalation of the smoke.

 

Anyway, I'm on my soap box, time to step down.

 

 

Again, I agree, and as I said have been advocating for us to be better behaved that everyone else for decades. If we want to think of ourselves as the best fans, we need to be the best fans. Now that is pretty simple.

 

Indeed. Rightly or wrongly, the way we get treated in the press should have us ALL pushing for being whiter than white and as innocent as the driven snow. If we do NOTHING offensive, stupid, inciteful or simply WRONG..... then it makes it all the harder for the media and the rest of Scottish football to legitimately lampoon us and get the message across that Rangers are Scotland's shame.

 

We all know that, given the size of our support, we are actually very well behaved fans - but all it takes is a small incident to take the focus off our opponents and onto us. Sunday being a prime example. Right now, the whole of Scottish football should be absolutely appalled at the thought that Aberdeen fans could mock the loss of 66 lives in 1971 or the fact that one of the best footballing products to EVER have been produced by this country is being accused of diving after losing his cruciate ligaments in a horrendous ASSAULT. But, no, we have the "big bad Rangers fans ripped seats out and launched them at Aberdeen fans" - when will we ever learn ????

[JFK-1 1,691]

I'm never going to defend Rangers fans when they're in the wrong and if evidence is produced to prove they're in the wrong I will take the same view of them as I do opposing fans who step out of line. And that's a major difference between me and opposing fans. I rarely if ever see them take the view I would against fans of any persuasion who get out of line.

 

I want all missile throwers, pyrotechnic clowns etc. weeded out of our support.