If England and Scotland defy the poppy ban...

Captain Havoc

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Apparently the playing of national anthems and the waving of flags is rife as well.

I've even heard that some teams discriminate against foreigners :eek:

Some of those national anthems involve soldiers fighting also and what about those patriotic coloured jerseys? Teams should wear jerseys that don't offend anyone, like Olympic boxing where one wears red and the other wears blue.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oddly enough, there is a massive thread on the rugby forum about England wearing a Poppy against South Africa.

oh, no there isn't.

It isn't breaking any rules in rugby though.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

What about military displays before kickoffs?
Like soldiers parachuting in? Thats happened in the past iirc.

Also, wreaths were laid on the pitch before the England v Scotland game and the NI game too that same night.

Were these banned too?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Apparently the playing of national anthems and the waving of flags is rife as well.

I've even heard that some teams discriminate against foreigners :eek:

The FIFA rules on such displays govern playing equipment, including jerseys, on the field of play.

Beefy78

This whole thing really really annoys me.

I want a World Cup in England. The support deserves it, it would be a great tournament and we'd have a punchers chance in it. And this kind of bull**** is exactly why we will never get that tournament.

There's a rule for the UK nations and there's a rule for everyone else.

Korat

Beefy78 wrote: »

There's a rule for the UK nations and there's a rule for everyone else.

That would seem to be that everyone else can suck it up when the British Empire feels like flexing it's influence.

SantryRed

Beefy78 wrote: »

This whole thing really really annoys me.

I want a World Cup in England. The support deserves it, it would be a great tournament and we'd have a punchers chance in it. And this kind of bull**** is exactly why we will never get that tournament.

There's a rule for the UK nations and there's a rule for everyone else.

Nope, you're not allowed have any political symbols of any nature. That's all there is to get in this situation.

It's an absolute disgrace by the FA, if they care that much about the veterans, that they continued to defy FIFA and wear the poppy anyways, instead of making a 6 figure donation. Instead, they'll be paying a fine to FIFA. Insanity.

citytillidie

Wales and Northern Ireland are also under investigation for Poppy displays and black arm bands

Cookiemunster

The thing is that in 2011, against Spain, England wore poppies on black armbands and FIFA were OK with it.
Now as far as I'm aware the rules haven't changed, so FIFA having already set a precedent don't have a leg to stand on in their own investigation.

Cookiemunster

We've gone through the looking glass now.

https://twitter.com/SkySportsNewsHQ/status/801434035830583298

Glico Man

Cookiemunster wrote: »

We've gone through the looking glass now.

https://twitter.com/SkySportsNewsHQ/status/801434035830583298

Also included in Wales' charge are members of the armed service standing at the tunnel holding poppies. FIFA have gone full retard.

Beefy78

That's ridiculous. I had some sympathy for Fifa being put in a tough position by the various UK FA's but come on now...

Out of interest, as a follower of American sports I've seen how crazily OTT the commemorations over there have been ahead of all sporting events the last couple of weeks. Does anyone know if there were celebrations of the armed forces etc ahead of the USA's home game against Mexico that International weekend and if so have Fifa said or done anything?

ArnoldJRimmer

Beefy78 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. I had some sympathy for Fifa being put in a tough position by the various UK FA's but come on now...

Out of interest, as a follower of American sports I've seen how crazily OTT the commemorations over there have been ahead of all sporting events the last couple of weeks. Does anyone know if there were celebrations of the armed forces etc ahead of the USA's home game against Mexico that International weekend and if so have Fifa said or done anything?

Just looked this up as I only started watching this match 30 minutes in, there appears to have been a lot of events commemorating the military.

http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2016/11/09/22/19/161109-mnt-us-soccer-to-honor-veterans-day-at-usa-mexico-on-nov-11-in-columbus

Cookiemunster

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The thing is that in 2011, against Spain, England wore poppies on black armbands and FIFA were OK with it.
Now as far as I'm aware the rules haven't changed, so FIFA having already set a precedent don't have a leg to stand on in their own investigation.

Was it contained in the referee's report and did FIFA actually clarify that it was in order?

Or was it a case of no action taken...which is presumably not really a precedent for a situation where a big fuss was made in advance with the British PM referring to it in their Parliament and FIFA very much aware of it now?

snaps

Has any action been taken against Romania, for all the trouble in the stadium against Poland. Including a flare thrown at lewandoski?

I've searched but can't find anything.

To be honest FIFA are making fools of themselves regarding Northern Ireland and Wales.

Where does it end?

What about FIFA's racism and respect emblems? Surely they are personal, political or religious?

eyerer

I thought it was the kit/gear on the field of play.. surely fans were allowed to wear poppies?

snaps

Apparently the fans wearing poppies is being investigated too.

Shows the difference between rugby and football in this day of age.

Most international matches (rugby) there are military personnel present at starts of matches.

Mr.Nice Guy

It's the FAW who have said it was "fans in the stands wearing the poppy".

The NI and Wales fans made poppy mosaics which I suspect is the real issue:






It becomes a slippery slope if you allow this sort of stuff imo.

~Rebel~

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's the FAW who have said it was "fans in the stands wearing the poppy".

The NI and Wales fans made poppy mosaics which I suspect is the real issue:






It becomes a slippery slope if you allow this sort of stuff imo.

Yeah to be fair that's a far cry from punters in the stands wearing poppies..something on that scale would have had to have been organized by the stadium/FA really, leaving the appropriate placards on the appropriate seats.

I hate all this stuff though...everything has become all about showing you care the most. Whether its peoples faux-emotional facebook updates, or stuff like this. Whatever happened to there being a bit of dignity and subtlety to remembrance?

eagle eye

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Yeah to be fair that's a far cry from punters in the stands wearing poppies..something on that scale would have had to have been organized by the stadium/FA really, leaving the appropriate placards on the appropriate seats.

I hate all this stuff though...everything has become all about showing you care the most. Whether its peoples faux-emotional facebook updates, or stuff like this. Whatever happened to there being a bit of dignity and subtlety to remembrance?

That went out the window when the PC police force came into existence. They shout loud about everything they don't like and those who are not afraid of them are going to stand up and make noise right back at them even if it's not very respectful but then again the PC police deserve it when they get it shoved in their faces like this.

NIMAN

snaps wrote: »

Apparently the fans wearing poppies is being investigated too.

Shows the difference between rugby and football in this day of age.

Most international matches (rugby) there are military personnel present at starts of matches.

But why?

citytillidie

Cookiemunster wrote: »

We've gone through the looking glass now.

https://twitter.com/SkySportsNewsHQ/status/801434035830583298

I say it is more the fans display before the games, same as teams like Celtic getting fined when their fans had Palestine flags

NIMAN

This is all so hard to police.

How many in the crowd have to display something before you are fined?

A couple of hundred Celtic fans holding Palestinian flags?
I once saw an Israeli flag at a match in the Bernabeu, should Real Madrid be fined cos one Israeli visited the ground and unfurled a flag?
What about Basque flags at Bilbao matches?
(personally I would find none of these 3 flags offensive, I don't even notice flags any more at games).

Only thing I would say about large poppy displays made by people holding up coloured cards at stadiums, is that they don't do this on their own, it is planned and laid out for that a certain card is under a certain seat, so the authorities have to take responsibility for those.

I think the whole thing isn't so much about differing standards in applying rules as differing standards of investigating. As with problems in society, problems in the workplace, heck even fouls on the pitch, some matters come to the attention of those applying the rules, some don't.

One flag was enough for Dundalk to get fined. And frankly, it was kinda understandable, the UEFA official asked for it to be taken down and it wasn't. Dundalk should be more annoyed with the individual and should have torn the flag off him and flung him out. But it was noticed. Pointing to another flag here or there is no defence.

And the FA brought the poppy issue to FIFA's attention before the match. What incredible stupidity, or arrogance. Did they think FIFA would give some kind of dispensation? FIFA simply pointed out the rule regarding gear and kit. When they sat up and took notice, they also saw the displays in the stands and are considering whether they breach other rules. If they fine the lot of them on each matter, so be it, there is nothing that mad or PC about it.

As for the comparison with rugby that is constantly brought up, pssssssssssssssst, different sport, different context, different history, different rules. Let's remember those nice rugby rules were why South Africa was banned by FIFA in the early 70s, but never lost membership of the IRB throughout Apartheid.

Fratton Fred

NIMAN wrote: »

This is all so hard to police.

How many in the crowd have to display something before you are fined?

A couple of hundred Celtic fans holding Palestinian flags?
I once saw an Israeli flag at a match in the Bernabeu, should Real Madrid be fined cos one Israeli visited the ground and unfurled a flag?
What about Basque flags at Bilbao matches?
(personally I would find none of these 3 flags offensive, I don't even notice flags any more at games).

Who gets to decide what is and isn't political at an international football match?

Dirty Dingus McGee

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Who gets to decide what is and isn't political at an international football match?

FIFA.

Fratton Fred

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

FIFA.

so basically, they can make the rules up a they go along and apply fines on a whim.

Great situation, I can't see any issues there.

dan1895

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so basically, they can make the rules up a they go along and apply fines on a whim.

Great situation, I can't see any issues there.

Seeing as they're the governing body then yes. They make the rules.

Fratton Fred

dan1895 wrote: »

Seeing as they're the governing body then yes. They make the rules.

I understand that, but what defines political?

Is a flag a political emblem? of course it is, but which ones are acceptable and which ones aren't, or is it just up to FIFA to arbitrarily decide?

bucketybuck

Fratton Fred wrote: »

or is it just up to FIFA to arbitrarily decide?

Thats rather the point in having a governing body, yes.

Fratton Fred

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats rather the point in having a governing body, yes.

and you see on issue with that?

It is apparently wrong to fly a Palestinian flag at a game, as Dundalk found out, but obviously ok to fly a TriColour at Liverpool games.

Rules are great, but there needs to be some consistency and some reasonable guidelines.

bucketybuck

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and you see on issue with that?

I have plenty of issues with FIFA, doesn't mean I can't accept that the governing body of an organisation is the one that dictates what is and isn't allowed.

Beefy78

The rules are pretty clear. The Home Nations voted in favour of those rules. England and Scotland knew full well that what they were planning was in breach of the rules hence approaching Fifa for an exemption.

We're bang to rights.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

and you see on issue with that?

It is apparently wrong to fly a Palestinian flag at a game, as Dundalk found out, but obviously ok to fly a TriColour at Liverpool games...

There seems to be a lot of silly stuff floating around.

First the rugby comparison, now the "...but...but...I once saw this at a game on some fellow's teeshirt and FIFA never objected..."

Has FIFA actually said it's okay to fly the Tricolour at Liverpool games, or is that completely made up by you? If they have, could you give a link so we can consider the context, the complaint that was lodged etc. etc.

Fratton Fred

Beefy78 wrote: »

England and Scotland knew full well that what they were planning was in breach of the rules hence approaching Fifa for an exemption.

We're bang to rights.

not really, considering it had been approved by FIFA previously.

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of silly stuff floating around.

First the rugby comparison, now the "...but...but...I once saw this at a game on some fellow's teeshirt and FIFA never objected..."

Has FIFA actually said it's okay to fly the Tricolour at Liverpool games, or is that completely made up by you? If they have, could you give a link so we can consider the context, the complaint that was lodged etc. etc.

it isn't silly stuff at all. If FIFA want to have a rule, then they should make it clear what that rule actually is, shouldn't they? Or is it just when someone complains, if so, the next old firm game is going to be a bundle of laughs.

they haven't specifically said flying a tricolour at Anfield is ok, but does that mean they might decide one day it isn't and fine Liverpool?

bucketybuck

Fratton Fred wrote: »

not really, considering it had been approved by FIFA previously.

Cite?

Fratton Fred

bucketybuck wrote: »

Cite?

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/10642242/fa-says-england-to-wear-poppies-on-armbands-in-scotland-game-at-wembley

"In keeping with the position agreed with FIFA back in 2011 and in what we believe is in accordance with Law 4, para 4, The FA intend to pay appropriate tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice by having the England team wear black armbands bearing poppies in our fixture on Armistice Day."

ArmaniJeanss

Tri-colour at Anfield for a club game would be an FA issue.
Much likes Fowlers pro-docker t-shirt was an FA issue.

Old Firm game is an SFA issue. Dundalk v whoever in CL was a UEFA issue.

*****
In general it's fairly pathetic to say that FIFA must have some sort of list of everything that's banned, or that the fact that someone may have gotten away with it in the past sets some everlasting precedent. That's not the way law works, so can hardly expect football governing bodies to have something even more detailed.

Beefy78

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/10642242/fa-says-england-to-wear-poppies-on-armbands-in-scotland-game-at-wembley

If the FA thought that the 2011 agreement covered them then why did they ask again?

You could argue it set a precedent but my understanding and recollection at the time was that 2011 was a last second one-off following a huge amount of pressure having been applied by the FA, the English media and UK Government.

bucketybuck

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/10642242/fa-says-england-to-wear-poppies-on-armbands-in-scotland-game-at-wembley

That is not a statement from FIFA displaying approval of anything. It is a statement from the FA based on their own interpretation, one that subsequent events would clearly indicate to be a false interpretation.

Beefy78

bucketybuck wrote: »

That is not a statement from FIFA displaying approval of anything. It is a statement from the FA based on their own interpretation, one that subsequent events would clearly indicate to be a false interpretation.

Fifa did approve in 2011. Eventually.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it isn't silly stuff at all. If FIFA want to have a rule, then they should make it clear what that rule actually is, shouldn't they? Or is it just when someone complains, if so, the next old firm game is going to be a bundle of laughs.

they haven't specifically said flying a tricolour at Anfield is ok, but does that mean they might decide one day it isn't and fine Liverpool?

That is the nature of all rules, regulations, laws, terms, conditions etc. the world over.

They just set out the basics, they don't print books with thousands of pages saying exactly what conduct is allowed and not allowed, in the context of football rules going through each and every possible display, banners, flags on poles, scarves, teeshirts, socks, sweaters, 1 flag at Anfield, a banner at this ground, a teeshirt at that ground. Of course they may decide that a certain flag on a certain day in a certain ground breaks that rule and if someone feels otherwise it is for them to put their case at that time...but they cannot possibly prescribe now every instance of what this might be.

And yes, like the application of all other rules, regulations, laws, terms, conditions etc. they can only react when there is an alleged breach. This is precisely why FIFA did not specify that wearing the poppy was wrong in advance, it is not for them to provide legal advice or set out behaviour.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

In general it's fairly pathetic to say that FIFA must have some sort of list of everything that's banned, or that the fact that someone may have gotten away with it in the past sets some everlasting precedent. That's not the way law works, so can hardly expect football governing bodies to have something even more detailed.

That's pretty much it, it suggests a misunderstanding of how rules and laws work imho.

Fratton Fred

Beefy78 wrote: »

You could argue it set a precedent but my understanding and recollection at the time was that 2011 was a last second one-off following a huge amount of pressure having been applied by the FA, the English media and UK Government.

I would imagine the FA considered it a precedent.

I'm not comfortable with the OTT way the FA have decided to display the poppy, similarly, I thought the premier leagues decision to play La Marseillaise before every premier league game following the Paris attacks was OTT, but why does everything have to be political. It seems as though the PC delicate flower brigade have gone berserk in football and this is just another step in the globalisation/ franchise-ification of the working class game.

at the risk of offending conor again, why is it that 80,000 people can sit in Twickenham and watch England wearing poppies and France wearing Le Bleuet and no one gives a flying ****, but if they were playing football, the PC brigade get all outraged?

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

That is the nature of all rules, regulations, laws, terms, conditions etc. the world over.

They just set out the basics, they don't print books with thousands of pages saying exactly what conduct is allowed and not allowed, in the context of football rules going through each and every possible display, banners, flags on poles, scarves, teeshirts, socks, sweaters, 1 flag at Anfield, a banner at this ground, a teeshirt at that ground. Of course they may decide that a certain flag on a certain day in a certain ground breaks that rule and if someone feels otherwise it is for them to put their case at that time...but they cannot possibly prescribe now every instance of what this might be.

And yes, like the application of all other rules, regulations, laws, terms, conditions etc. they can only react when there is an alleged breach. This is precisely why FIFA did not specify that wearing the poppy was wrong in advance, it is not for them to provide legal advice or set out behaviour.

Rules need to be clear and unambiguous so they can applied evenly and the very ambiguous statements FIFA have at the moment allow for too much interpretation.

I have no doubt the FAI thought they were ok putting 1916/2016 on the shirt and it appears the FIFA official was ok with it as well, but now they are being investigated?

FFS, if the managed to be clear about the offside rule, surely they can be clear about what is and isn't a political symbol.

bucketybuck

Fratton Fred wrote: »

but if they were playing football, the PC brigade get all outraged?

I doubt FIFA really do give a **** about it, and had the FA said nothing and just went ahead with it there probably wouldn't have been anything said.

Surely the problem is not the poppy, its that the FA specifically said that they were going to do something that is against the rules, they highlighted the rule and then they broke the rule. It was shoved in their face so FIFA simply have to respond, what else can they do?

Gods sake, the last thing I want is to defend FIFA but who created this whole situation in the first place?

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

at the risk of offending conor again, why is it that 80,000 people can sit in Twickenham and watch England wearing poppies and France wearing Le Bleuet and no one gives a flying ****, but if they were playing football, the PC brigade get all outraged?

It's not in the slightest bit offensive to me. As for the PC brigade being offended, one look at the Daily Mail tells me who is shrieking loudest about this issue. Did the British PM really whinge about it in their Parliament? I mean, you gotta laugh at that level of outrage...:D

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would imagine the FA considered it a precedent.

You imagine incorrectly.

There is no precedent. Precedent would be if the matter was considered at the time and a ruling was made that it was in order. Precedent means a decision, an action, not a...non event, non decision, non action. Not being caught for something is never a precedent.

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not in the slightest bit offensive to me. As for the PC brigade being offended, one look at the Daily Mail tells me who is shrieking loudest about this issue. Did the British PM really whinge about it in their Parliament? I mean, you gotta laugh at that level of outrage...:D

in fairness, she was responding to a question and was showboating a bit. It wasn't a whinge, more a dig at a largely discredited organisation

Deleted User wrote: »

You imagine incorrectly.
There is no precedent. Precedent would be if the matter was considered at the time and a ruling was made that it was in order. Precedent means a decision, an action, not a...non event, non decision, non action. Not being caught for something is never a precedent.

The FA were under the impression a compromise had been reached. ergo, an agreement., a decision.

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The FA were under the impression a compromise had been reached. ergo, an agreement., a decision.

No doubt the FA will pull a copy of that decision/compromise/agreement out so...or at least a very detailed memo of the conversation recording this important concession, and they will present it, and FIFA will be stumped.

Have to say, you'd think the FA would have published it by now to stop it even getting this far.

Unless it was very clearly articulated..."we had formed the impression that the rules would not be applied..." doesn't sound like a good defence at all, does it?