Pitch Invasion - What you think of it?

Happyman42

bucketybuck wrote: »

It wasn't derogatory, it was simply accurate.

On the TV clip in question, the player was accosted by a man with a large beer belly and a skin tight replica jersey. He tried to throw his arm around the player, who looked at this stranger nervously and tried to push on past.

Thats what he looked like, not my fault he was a walking cliche.

You said 'beer bellied fans flowed' past him.

Is a single beer bellied fan automatically drunk and a danger? You mustn't get out much.

keane2097

Happyman42 wrote: »

And how many cases where taken overall for events other than invasions? That figure has no relevance without the other one.

Yeah was wondering the exact same thing.

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

You said 'beer bellied fans flowed' past him.

Is a single beer bellied fan automatically drunk and a danger? You mustn't get out much.

Have you a point to make? I never said he was a danger, I said the player in question looked nervous/apprehensive at having to wade through all the back slapping kids and yahoos, instead of celebrating with his team mates, and thats a shame.

premierstone

Happyman42 wrote: »

And how many cases where taken overall for events other than invasions? That figure has no relevance without the other one. Clones is a ground with many oppurtunities for casualties, for instance, narrow exits loose gravel on steep inclines etc etc. A young fella had a fall off a wall a few years ago and I noticed on Sunday that the wall is still unprotected, loads of other potential accidents waiting to happen too.
Also the GAA generally don't contest these cases and settle (which is one of the reasons compo culture is rampant in this country) If they fought a few all the way then they would discourage those on an easy money mission.

keane2097 wrote: »

Yeah was wondering the exact same thing.

So because there are other potential health risks the most obvious and preventable one should be allowed to continue?? I'm sure there is logic there but I can't see it lads??

keane2097

premierstone wrote: »

So because there are other potential health risks the most obvious and preventable one should be allowed to continue?? I'm sure there is logic there but I can't see it lads??

I think we've yet to prove it's a health risk to any non-trivial degree. Something being vanishingly dangerous is not a reason to ban it or we would have to ban everything. The point has been made pretty clearly.

Wouldn't mind a look at those cases if you know where I could get a link?

Happyman42

bucketybuck wrote: »

Have you a point to make? I never said he was a danger, I said the player in question looked nervous/apprehensive at having to wade through all the back slapping kids and yahoos, instead of celebrating with his team mates, and thats a shame.

You aren't a trustworthy source of information here, is the pont. 'Beer bellied fans flowing' across the field and now 'yahoos'.
All I seen was excitement and good humour. My mate's young fella got lost (9) but he never worried for a minute, it just wasn't a threatening situation.

premierstone

keane2097 wrote: »

I think we've yet to prove it's a health risk to any non-trivial degree. Something being vanishingly dangerous is not a reason to ban it or we would have to ban everything. The point has been made pretty clearly.

Wouldn't mind a look at those cases if you know where I could get a link?

I don't sorry, it was referenced in an Article in the Examiner by Diarmuid Flynn around a forthnight before the championship started, I've tried to find it but no joy, you might have better luck!

Look I love a good pitch invasion as much as anyone and one of my abiding memories of my childhood is been part of the invasion in Thurles in '91 but I think the common sense appraoch is to keeps the fans off the pitch and allow the players of both teams to come to terms with the result.

keane2097

premierstone wrote: »

I don't sorry, it was referenced in an Article in the Examiner by Diarmuid Flynn around a forthnight before the championship started, I've tried to find it but no joy, you might have better luck!

Look I love a good pitch invasion as much as anyone and one of my abiding memories of my childhood is been part of the invasion in Thurles in '91 but I think the common sense appraoch is to keeps the fans off the pitch and allow the players of both teams to come to terms with the result.

We're coming dangerously close to agreeing to disagree here

The bit in bold is an argument I think you can make sensibly, I don't think it would convince me but it's definitely sensible. The potential health risk one, not for me.

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

You aren't a trustworthy source of information here, is the pont.

Oh no, what shall I do!

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

keane2097 wrote: »

The fact that there has never been a fatality in well over 100 years of uncontrolled pitch invasions stands as a fact.

But there have been injuries. In an earlier post, someone mentioned that there were 27 cases brought against the GAA last year where supporters claimed that they were injured on the field after a game. Its a typical Irish attitude that we have to wait for a fatality before we act.

keane2097 wrote: »

The burden of proof is on the person who is trying to restrict people to prove that the level of danger is significant. If the level of danger for walking from the terrace onto the field is significant then it's very hard to argue that walking from the terrace to the entrance is not as dangerous if not more so

How can leaving the stands designed to accommodate a large number of people be more dangerous than scaling a fence/barrier that is designed to keep people off the pitch?

keane2097

Ronald Cold Planetarium wrote: »

But there have been injuries. In an earlier post, someone mentioned that there were 27 cases brought against the GAA last year where supporters claimed that they were injured on the field after a game. Its a typical Irish attitude that we have to wait for a fatality before we act.

As was also stated that's a pretty meaningless stat without knowing how many people brought cases against the GAA in total, i.e. would you think 27 was a lot if it was compared to 10,000 claims from people slipping on the terrace?

Also, the fact that I can't seem to find any details at all on any of the cases means, if it were me, I wouldn't be too triumphant in using them as a proof of anything. If you happen to have any links about them I'd enjoy taking a look through them.

Ronald Cold Planetarium wrote: »

How can leaving the stands designed to accommodate a large number of people be more dangerous than scaling a fence/barrier that is designed to keep people off the pitch?

My argument has been framed from the beginning from the POV that the GAA should implement a controlled pitch entry for fans at the end of games. Scaling fences and barriers is not ideal but I suspect it's no more dangerous than people climbing over seats and squashing into the exits at the back of the stand in any stadium you care to mention.

You don't have to wait for a fatality by the way, but you certainly have to prove there's an element of risk substantially higher than all the other things you're ok with people doing at GAA grounds. If, for example, I had stats that showed that for every injury someone gets going onto the field, five people get injured slipping on the terrace will you agree that terraces should be banned? What if it's an equal number of people? What if it's a quarter?

What if one out of a thousand people gets a moderate, terrace related injury at GAA matches a year? When do we start banning things because they're too dangerous?

Without seeing the 27 cases you mentioned above, I'd imagine we'd have heard of anything substantially worse than someone slipping and breaking an ankle or falling over and breaking an arm. Say that was out of a very moderate estimate of 30,000 people going onto pitches in an uncontrolled manner in 2012. That's 27 broken arms out of 30K people. And that's without trying to put a safe system in place to deal with it properly.

How long before we decide hurling itself is too dangerous and ban that? Nobody is being dragged kicking and screaming out onto the field after a match, everyone makes the decision for themselves. Same as anyone decides hurling isn't too dangerous for them, or driving to work, or crossing the road - all of which I would wager my entire net worth are vastly more dangerous than going onto the pitch after a match.

Happyman42

premierstone wrote: »

So because there are other potential health risks the most obvious and preventable one should be allowed to continue?? I'm sure there is logic there but I can't see it lads??

The point I was making was that there only seems to be a serious issue in Croke Park, the attempt to stop it in Clones was minimal if indeed they tried at all. And the reason I suspect for that is that the GAA financial heads want a clean corporate branded event at the end of the match.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

keane2097 wrote: »

My argument has been framed from the beginning from the POV that the GAA should implement a controlled pitch entry for fans at the end of games. Scaling fences and barriers is not ideal but I suspect it's no more dangerous than people climbing over seats and squashing into the exits at the back of the stand in any stadium you care to mention.

I have never seen or heard of that happening when people are trying to leave a stand. However, its very common when people are running onto the pitch after final. Just look at the munster final. before the final whistle, the pitch was surrounded by people.

keane2097 wrote: »

You don't have to wait for a fatality by the way, but you certainly have to prove there's an element of risk substantially higher than all the other things you're ok with people doing at GAA grounds.

Look at the presentation of the 2002 all ireland final. Lots of Armagh supporters were being crushed at the front. If they remained in the stands/terrace then the risk of being injured would be a lot lower.

keane2097 wrote: »

If, for example, I had stats that showed that for every injury someone gets going onto the field, five people get injured slipping on the terrace will you agree that terraces should be banned? What if it's an equal number of people? What if it's a quarter?

If for every person that got injured entering the pitch, 5 people get injured slipping on the terrace, then the terrace would be banned years ago. But that isnt the case. The modern terrace is very safe as a result of hillsborough. Even so, they are pretty much banned in the UK, and by FIFA.

keane2097 wrote: »

How long before we decide hurling itself is too dangerous and ban that? Nobody is being dragged kicking and screaming out onto the field after a match, everyone makes the decision for themselves. Same as anyone decides hurling isn't too dangerous for them, or driving to work, or crossing the road - all of which I would wager my entire net worth are vastly more dangerous than going onto the pitch after a match.

This has nothing to do with how dangerous the sport or everyday things, its crowd control and crowd management. 20-30k people rushing into one area of the pitch can be very dangerous, and can lead to a crush e.g. the 2002 final. What happens if there are kids stuck in the middle? 20-30k people in a modern terrace cant cause a crush because of the barriers scattered throughout the terrace. I doubt the GAA's insurance premium is high enough without allowing a few pitch invasions every year. The same people who complain about losing this dangerous tradition probably wouldn't like the GAA to pass on the cost of higher insurance premiums through ticket prices either.

As for the dangers of driving to work, 20 years ago people in Ireland didnt wear seat belts. Around 15 years ago, there were tens of thousands of drivers that would drink and drive. Peoples attitudes change, and the world changes.
I would feel much safer driving to work in the morning, than having to go through a "pitch invasion" scenario every day.

manofwisdom

keane2097 wrote: »

I drink, I smoke, I drive my car to work and home every day all of which are vastly more likely to cause me significant harm that walking through a gate onto a pitch.

The last bit sums it up for me well said.

InchicoreDude

Same as anyone decides hurling isn't too dangerous for them, or driving to work, or crossing the road - all of which I would wager my entire net worth are vastly more dangerous than going onto the pitch after a match.

They are not more dangerous because they have rules.

Pitch invasions (in their current format) do not have rules.

I would have no problem with supporters entering the pitch in a controlled manner either. But is that what happens at the moment when pitch invasions occur? No, it is not.

InchicoreDude

Happyman42 wrote: »

The point I was making was that there only seems to be a serious issue in Croke Park, the attempt to stop it in Clones was minimal if indeed they tried at all. And the reason I suspect for that is that the GAA financial heads want a clean corporate branded event at the end of the match.

But what advantage is it from a corporate viewpoint to not have a pitch invasion? Everyone agrees its a great spectacle. So it would look brilliant from the corporate boxes (I assume as I have never had the honour of being in one!)

Happyman42

InchicoreDude wrote: »

But what advantage is it from a corporate viewpoint to not have a pitch invasion? Everyone agrees its a great spectacle. So it would look brilliant from the corporate boxes (I assume as I have never had the honour of being in one!)

This is what they have in mind, I imagine. It's ok, but very sterile from a fan point of view. The more slick the GAA tries to become the more it moves away from it parish based nature. And I think that will be ultimately detrimental to the organisation.

InchicoreDude

Happyman42 wrote: »

This is what they have in mind, I imagine. It's ok, but very sterile from a fan point of view. The more slick the GAA tries to become the more it moves away from it parish based nature. And I think that will be ultimately detrimental to the organisation.

I still dont get your point. How does not having a pitch invasion do anything for their corporate image??? I dont think it harms it in any way.

Happyman42

InchicoreDude wrote: »

I still dont get your point. How does not having a pitch invasion do anything for their corporate image??? I dont think it harms it in any way.

The getting rid of pitch invasions has nothing to do with H&S (if it did then we would see similar concern elsewhere around grounds) it is however 'of major concern in Croke Park'....why? Because in reality they want the centre of the field for a rugby/soccer style, saleable, corporate advertising event at the end of the All Ireland.
You can spin (aka: bull****) to defend anything, eg. the moving of culturally significant provincial finals (because more people will get to see it!) and 'we are concerned about people's safety', bull**** they are, if they where then the standard of other grounds would be much much higher.

InchicoreDude

Happyman42 wrote: »

The getting rid of pitch invasions has nothing to do with H&S (if it did then we would see similar concern elsewhere around grounds) it is however 'of major concern in Croke Park'....why? Because in reality they want the centre of the field for a rugby/soccer style, saleable, corporate advertising event at the end of the All Ireland.
You can spin (aka: bull****) to defend anything, eg. the moving of culturally significant provincial finals (because more people will get to see it!) and 'we are concerned about people's safety', bull**** they are, if they where then the standard of other grounds would be much much higher.

The problem is that I dont see how having the presentation in the middle of the field is any more marketable than having it in the stand. In that photo, you have a Heineken sign in the background - you could just a s easily have a sign like that in the background of the presenetation area in the Hogan (or somewhere in the shot of the presentation area). Am I missing something???

Also, they have moved the presentation back to the Hogan (where it should be) and I have not seen anything to suggest that there are any plans to revert to the middle of the field. So I dont see how that could be used as a motivation for preventing pitch invasions.

By the way, I did read an article where a Limerick official said they simply couldnt control the pitch invasion because they do not have the same level as stewarding (numbers wise) as Croke Park do.

Citycap

Happyman42 wrote: »

This is what they have in mind, I imagine. It's ok, but very sterile from a fan point of view. The more slick the GAA tries to become the more it moves away from it parish based nature. And I think that will be ultimately detrimental to the organisation.

You're not a real GAA man at all. Everyone knows its not an organisation, its an association. If you want to go far in the GAA you call it "the association"
Remember that when practicing your acceptance speech at the A.G.M.

"a cairde Gael" etc. etc.

Happyman42

InchicoreDude wrote: »

By the way, I did read an article where a Limerick official said they simply couldnt control the pitch invasion because they do not have the same level as stewarding (numbers wise) as Croke Park do.

There you have it in a nutshell. Tradition could be saved with the right amount of stewarding. Read Frank McNally in todays Irish Times about pitch invasions.
http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/on-the-field-of-dreams-1.1472713

As I said at the start, once again the financial mandarins in Croke Prrk will throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Citycap wrote: »

You're not a real GAA man at all. Everyone knows its not an organisation, its an association. If you want to go far in the GAA you call it "the association"
Remember that when practicing your acceptance speech at the A.G.M.

"a cairde Gael" etc. etc.

Maybe you should tell that to P. Duffy, the Dublin GAA player and the Wexford one.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/no-place-in-gaa-for-racism-duffy-says-1.1331472

'Real GAA man'.....deary me :rolleyes:

InchicoreDude

There you have it in a nutshell. Tradition could be saved with the right amount of stewarding. Read Frank McNally in todays Irish Times about pitch invasions.
http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/on-...eams-1.1472713

The following is a quote from that article:

In the meantime, I must admit that the hour I spent on the playing field after Sunday’s game was among the happiest of my life. I hope even my Dublin-born children will remember it fondly, as they mixed with country cousins and posed for photographs with players who had to share their triumph, uncomplaining, with an extended family of several thousand.

I dont think anybody would have a problem with this. I have seen this many times in Pearse Stadium where there has not been a 'mass' pitch invasion as such but kids run onto the pitch afterwards and get autographs from players etc.

The problem occurs because you have thousands of people tearing onto the pitch at the same time as quickly as possibly. And it is mostly here where the danger occurs. When the crowd settles down on the pitch, there is somewhat less of an issue.

I completed a long distance run this morning and was totally knackered after it. The last thing I would want at the end of that kind of exertion is a stranger hugging me and jumping on top of me. That is what happens with pitch invasions in their current format. A player in an inter county team would be even more knackered and they have to deal with tonnes of strangers jumping on top of them, why should they? What if one of them had injured themselves in the last second of the game? For example, what if a player broke their collar bone in the last minute of the game and then had all these people jumping on their back? How on earth can that be justfied?

You could argue that the GAA could try to alter the pitch invasion rather than ban it. But I dont really see how they could do this? This thread has been going on for a while and none of the posters who are in favour of pitch invasions have suggested an alternative method to managing pitch invasions. The vibe I am getting from them is that the current pitch invasion format is ok. I dont think it is ok. I have seen people who have fallen over & seen kids who have had been hit on their head by an adults knee during a pitch invasion. I prefer not to see that stuff at a GAA match.

I have no problem with people going onto the pitch in a controlled manner & managed manner after the final whistle. That is not a pitch invasion.

BPKS

I wonder how many of the people who walked across the pitch in Thurles the other night to get to the stand at the other side (with the young players lined up and Amhran na bhFiann was being played) were the same people whose right it was to get onto the pitch after the Munster Final.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/hurling/munster-council-to-review-stewarding-at-thurles-1.1473960

Happyman42

InchicoreDude wrote: »

The following is a quote from that article:



I dont think anybody would have a problem with this. I have seen this many times in Pearse Stadium where there has not been a 'mass' pitch invasion as such but kids run onto the pitch afterwards and get autographs from players etc.

The problem occurs because you have thousands of people tearing onto the pitch at the same time as quickly as possibly. And it is mostly here where the danger occurs. When the crowd settles down on the pitch, there is somewhat less of an issue.

I completed a long distance run this morning and was totally knackered after it. The last thing I would want at the end of that kind of exertion is a stranger hugging me and jumping on top of me. That is what happens with pitch invasions in their current format. A player in an inter county team would be even more knackered and they have to deal with tonnes of strangers jumping on top of them, why should they? What if one of them had injured themselves in the last second of the game? For example, what if a player broke their collar bone in the last minute of the game and then had all these people jumping on their back? How on earth can that be justfied?

You could argue that the GAA could try to alter the pitch invasion rather than ban it. But I dont really see how they could do this? This thread has been going on for a while and none of the posters who are in favour of pitch invasions have suggested an alternative method to managing pitch invasions. The vibe I am getting from them is that the current pitch invasion format is ok. I dont think it is ok. I have seen people who have fallen over & seen kids who have had been hit on their head by an adults knee during a pitch invasion. I prefer not to see that stuff at a GAA match.

I have no problem with people going onto the pitch in a controlled manner & managed manner after the final whistle. That is not a pitch invasion.

Well first of all, maybe stop calling them 'invasions' as that implies a threat or aggressive action. Embrace the idea as part of the culture of the game and let people know that they will get onto the pitch and critically, steward the end of the game adequately.
Most people don't want to have to climb wires or bully their way past stewards. The ,majority of people going onto the pitch in Limerick and Clones where parents with children, and adults.
There was aggression displayed by stewards with the impossible task of stopping people in Clones (I witnessed it myself) and this is predominantly shown against young excited teenagers and children, it is imo at this point that the highest risk of injury occurs, there is no need for it, a much calmer organised end to a game can easily be achieved.

InchicoreDude

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well first of all, maybe stop calling them 'invasions' as that implies a threat or aggressive action. Embrace the idea as part of the culture of the game and let people know that they will get onto the pitch and critically, steward the end of the game adequately.
Most people don't want to have to climb wires or bully their way past stewards. The ,majority of people going onto the pitch in Limerick and Clones where parents with children, and adults.

But in the days where pitch invasions were the norm, people still ran on to the pitch at full pelt when the final whistle went. So even when it was embraced, the problem still existed.

There was aggression displayed by stewards with the impossible task of stopping people in Clones (I witnessed it myself) and this is predominantly shown against young excited teenagers and children, it is imo at this point that the highest risk of injury occurs, there is no need for it, a much calmer organised end to a game can easily be achieved.

I also do not think stewards should be aggressive towards the crowd as it probably heightens the dangers.

However, how can a "much calmer organised end" be achieved? If you allow pitch invasions, then you just have people running onto the pitch as fast as they can like we had in the past. That is where the biggest danger lies (I say this because I have seen some pretty iffy moments at this point in the past)That is exactly the reason that they were stopped.

I would love to see a "much calmer organised end" but I do not think this is achievable. If you think it is, then provide specifics on how it is achieveable and change my mind.

Happyman42

InchicoreDude wrote: »

I would love to see a "much calmer organised end" but I do not think this is achievable. If you think it is, then provide specifics on how it is achieveable and change my mind.

1. Embrace the idea, make it known (as voiciferously as they have tried to stop it) that people are welcome onto the pitch.
2. Provide proper stewarding, and make gates onto the pitch much wider.
3. Mentor the crowd at halftime and immediately after the final whistle goes.
4. Man mark each player & referee with a steward, whose job is to get to that player and chaperone them as quickly as possible to the sideline.
5. Appoint somebody to be 'in charge' and to call the shots.

99% of the crowd will comply, but you won't stop the idiots, but they can't be stopped anyhow and will either get on for a brief run or be manhandled by stewards.
Minimise the chaos. There was chaos along the fences at the match in Clones and stewards tempers where flareing and kids (I saw no adults) where taking risks to try to get past. You will wipe out the majority of that with the steps above.

InchicoreDude

Good points in fairness. But rather than continue with 'traditional' pitch invasions, you are proposing something pretty much entirely new.

I like it though. I like your point about wider gates and it makes me wonder what is actually the point of the small wall around the pitch - couldn't it be done without?

I dont like point 4. That should be focused solely on player welfare. If it is not in the player's interest to get to the sideline as quickly as possible (for example, due to injury), then they should not be forced to. Nor should they have to endure strangers jumping on top of them.

I think you are being somewhat optimistic with you 99% of the crowd will comply your plan has merits. You should delve into it in more detail and send the GAA / Croke Park a proposal!

Happyman42

InchicoreDude wrote: »

I think you are being somewhat optimistic with you 99% of the crowd will comply your plan has merits.

100% comply with the restrictive proposals and we know nothing of the strongarm tactics used by stewards. But on seeing some of it, I would bet those who try are hurt. My huge fear is what will happen when a team who have never won an all-ireland in the modern age (like Monaghan) attempt to simply express their joy. Which is the unique and wonderful thing about a pitch invasion...the expression of unbridled joy.