End of Spurs Vs Chelsea game !! Fan attacks lampard

therecklessone

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

yes both are security risks, but one of them actually tried to hurt someone, theres the difference and thats is why there is a different punishment. If the other guy had tried to injure a spurs player I am pretty sure chelski would have also banned him for life as well.

So the Chelsea fan ran on for the good of his health? Didn't want to hurt somebody, but ran straight to the mass of bodies and had to be pushed away by a steward?

Yeah...

WhiteWashMan

BaZmO* wrote:

I know the point you're making but the police do actually get involved in exceptional cases. Didn't a player get a custodial sentence recently for punching an opposing player in the FA Cup?

It was someone from one of the lower league teams and it was one of the featured games on match of the day.

Or maybe it's a case of one rule for the millionaires and another for the paupers...

actually, it was an honest question
i did want to know if there was police involvement in the cantona case.

and yes, someone was jailed i think for GBH after punching someone in the face. was captured on tv, left a bad taste inthe mouth tbh.

The Muppet

Football is a passionate game, Fans and players should be able to celebrate a win without opposing fans taking umberage. If fans can not take a defeat and the ribbing that can go with that they should stay away .


Chelseas celebration just illustrates the pressure they are under this season.

BaZmO*

The guy in question, Barrow AFC footballer James Cotterill, actually served 5 weeks of a 4 month sentence for punching Bristol Rovers striker Sean Rigg during an FA Cup tie at Holker Street in November, braking his jaw in two places.

The most ridiculous thing about this incident was the fact that it was actually a featured game on MOTD and therefore the ground was swamped with TV cameras ready to catch every little incident. To punch someone full force in the face while all the cameras are watching is just plain stupid. (well actually, punching anyone in the face at any time is not on but you know what I mean...)

Kold

Bateman wrote:

Yawn. Everyone hates Chelsea. How insightful. Can any SPURS fans here say they felt offended by the nature of Chelsea's celebrations, or is it just United and Arsenal fans getting offended on behalf of Spurs fans? :rolleyes:

I was more offended by your last 15 minutes of play tbh. Team huddles for every throw in etc.

Jimboo_Jones

therecklessone wrote:

So the Chelsea fan ran on for the good of his health? Didn't want to hurt somebody, but ran straight to the mass of bodies and had to be pushed away by a steward?

Yeah...

hummm I really see can not how you can not see that they are different offences, I guess I may feel the same way if it had happend when Forest played them in the cup, but for some reasons chelski didn't celabrate as much

hell, I dont think any of them even botherd to break a sweat that day either ...

therecklessone

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

hummm I really see can not how you can not see that they are different offences, I guess I may feel the same way if it had happend when Forest played them in the cup, but for some reasons chelski didn't celabrate as much

hell, I dont think any of them even botherd to break a sweat that day either ...

One ran on to the pitch and threw a punch, another ran on and was stopped from throwing a punch by a steward. Or do you think your chap just wanted to join in the celebrations?

They should both get life bans IMO.

The Muppet

therecklessone wrote:

One ran on to the pitch and threw a punch, another ran on and was stopped from throwing a punch by a steward. Or do you think your chap just wanted to join in the celebrations?

They should both get life bans IMO.

Or to put iit another way, one ran onto the pitch and threw a punch and one didn't. Would it be fair to punish both incidents the same. Personally I don't think so.

Bateman

therecklessone wrote:

shouldn't surprise me though considering the Chelsea blade merchants who turned up in Putney last Sunday...

Spurs mob good guys Chelsea mob bad guys? A bit of a cheap shot to even bring this into it, but since you mentioned it, all the reports of "stabbings" that I've read were to the arse, hardly life-threatening. Either way, I'm sure the mob of Spurs who decided to "turn up" (in SW London) and have a quiet gargle in the boozer in question knew exactly what they were doing, and got exactly what they were expecting.

As Muppet has pointed out, the Spurs fan made a genuine attempt to attack a player. The Chelsea fan simply encroached the pitch. Separate offences in most people's book surely.

therecklessone

Bateman wrote:

Spurs mob good guys Chelsea mob bad guys?

No, Spurs mob bad, Chelsea mob bad. Difference is Chelsea mob broke the unwritten "no weapons rule". Yes the Spurs mob expected a ruck, my informants tell me they were in that boozer all day, but gradually cleared out as it looked like yours wouldn't show. Chelsea spotters waited until the pub was nearly clear before calling in the big boys, and despite numbers being on Chelsea's side they still needed weapons. Very cowardly.

I've a mate got a kicking off 5/6 Chelsea as he crossed Putney Bridge, got a broken arm, a bloody face and a night in hospital for his troubles. He was on his own.

Bateman wrote:

As Muppet has pointed out, the Spurs fan made a genuine attempt to attack a player. The Chelsea fan simply encroached the pitch. Separate offences in most people's book surely.

The Chelsea fan did not simply encroach. He ran towards the incident and but for the intervention of the steward would have got involved.

BaZmO*

therecklessone wrote:

The Chelsea fan did not simply encroach. He ran towards the incident and but for the intervention of the steward would have got involved.

So in that case it's a life time ban for every fan that ever enters onto a pitch because the might attack a player. The fact of the is that he didn't and the Spurs fan did.

therecklessone

BaZmO* wrote:

So in that case it's a life time ban for every fan that ever enters onto a pitch

Don't be ridiculous.

Can anyone suggest a reason why the 2nd individual entered the field of play other than to involve himself in the incident?

Seriously?

BaZmO*

therecklessone wrote:

Don't be ridiculous.

Can anyone suggest a reason why the 2nd individual entered the field of play other than to involve himself in the incident?

Seriously?

It doesn't matter what you think he may have or may not have done, the fact remains that that one person invaded the pitch and threw a punch and the other person just invaded the pitch. They are the facts, anything else is just speculation. For the record though, I do think that Chelsea should'vemade an example of him and mad gave him im a life time ban. But if they had of the what the reason be for giving the ban? Pitch invasion?

growler

smemon wrote:

i couldn't be arsed checking the stats and giving you exact matches, but they do and im sure most people will agree.

It stems from mourinho - the chosen one, the ice man... he encourages it.

Like i said, i've no problem with Chelsea celebrating with their own fans. But they stayed there too long.

Based on the Chelsea celebrations, i'd have thought chelsea had just got into the final. Contrast Chelsea's celebrations with utd's..

bar the handbags on the touchline, very low profile, a few claps and waves and off everyone goes down the tunnel.

At away matches, if you win a big match, you go over to your fans, but never stand still and applaud them lapping it up, you keep moving in an arc shaped fashion and go back to the tunnel. If it's a semi final victory, or final victory, obviously you celebrate more.

If you lose and away match, you move your body towards your fans, walk over towards them and applaud them, as a token gesture.

They're the unwritten rules. As Chelsea had no real reason to celebrate as much as they did, it suggests they were just doing it to rub it in.

as usual a totally comical response. As a fan, who was there on monday night, a night where chelsea fans did their club proud and supported their team with passion while spurs quietly mumbled to themselves I think that (a) chelsea were dead right to applaud and celebrate with those of us daft enough to go to 3 point lane despite the threats and rumours of revenge for Parsons Green and (b) it was a win worth celebrating (as are all wins for CFC from now on) as it takes us a step closer to wembley and a bit more silver and (c) after coming back from 3-1 to win away against a team in form was a big result for the blues.

Ok chelsea fans had probably wound up the spurs lot with our non stop singing etc. but spurs had more than one fan run on the pitch during the match, the only dissapointing thing all night was that the stewards declined to throw the offending spurs fan into the away end.

Spurs have a definate hoolifan problem, there may well be deep psychological reasons for that, (perhaps brought on by the what if we had sold to Abramovich syndrome) but its hardly an excuse. Spurs are playing the best football i've seen from them in years (many) that success is eluding them is more coz of how other teams have moved on, but they got to learn to live with it.

I also suspect that had spurs won at the Bridge a little polite applause would not have marked the event.

growler

therecklessone wrote:

No, Spurs mob bad, Chelsea mob bad. Difference is Chelsea mob broke the unwritten "no weapons rule". I've a mate got a kicking off 5/6 Chelsea as he crossed Putney Bridge, got a broken arm, a bloody face and a night in hospital for his troubles. He was on his own.
QUOTE]


funny how stories differ, from my side, spurs turned up on mass and armed with baseball bats and weighed in to a bunch of colour wearing innocents before the firm turned up.

And your lot aren't squeaky clean either mate , i've seen middle aged women take a punch in the face going down totnum high road, and spotty teenages get slashed just for wearing blue.

:mad:

Bateman

therecklessone wrote:

No, Spurs mob bad, Chelsea mob bad. Difference is Chelsea mob broke the unwritten "no weapons rule". Yes the Spurs mob expected a ruck, my informants tell me they were in that boozer all day, but gradually cleared out as it looked like yours wouldn't show. Chelsea spotters waited until the pub was nearly clear before calling in the big boys, and despite numbers being on Chelsea's side they still needed weapons. Very cowardly.

I've a mate got a kicking off 5/6 Chelsea as he crossed Putney Bridge, got a broken arm, a bloody face and a night in hospital for his troubles. He was on his own.



The Chelsea fan did not simply encroach. He ran towards the incident and but for the intervention of the steward would have got involved.

I've yet to see a scrap in England, or anywhere else, where a weapon of some description wasn't used. I've heard differing accounts, but I'd expect you to believe what you heard, which is Chelsea waiting til the boozer was beginning to empty, and then hitting it. Maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't have mobbed up in the area in question. Maybe they were sending out a statement by doing so, and maybe they got a statement in response. Maybe they won't be mobbing up there in future.

I have less info about the incident in the forecourt just after Spurs took the lead (for the first time), maybe you can elaborate on that one as well?

therecklessone

growler wrote:

3 point lane

Still trotting that one out? Who said Chelsea fans have no sense of history? :rolleyes:

growler wrote:

the only dissapointing thing all night was that the stewards declined to throw the offending spurs fan into the away end.

Ridiculous statement.

growler wrote:

Spurs have a definate hoolifan problem

I suggest you remove yourself from that glasshouse before you throw any more stones.

therecklessone

Bateman wrote:

I've yet to see a scrap in England, or anywhere else, where a weapon of some description wasn't used. I've heard differing accounts, but I'd expect you to believe what you heard, which is Chelsea waiting til the boozer was beginning to empty, and then hitting it. Maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't have mobbed up in the area in question. Maybe they were sending out a statement by doing so, and maybe they got a statement in response. Maybe they won't be mobbing up there in future.

I choose to believe people that I know in the real world rather than some randomer on a message board. Ta all the same.