The on topic thread 3.0

[SM]

Good job at victim blaming.

I mean he threw a flare into the crowd. Not sure that's victim blaming.

 

[Cruyff14]

I mean he threw a flare into the crowd. Not sure that's victim blaming.

OK.

 

[SM]

OK.

You don't think he threw a flare into the crowd?

 

[chef]

It was really ****ing stupid to throw the flare back into to the crowd.

 

[Jatz]

**** the crowd, it wouldn't have been a problem if these dickheads didn't insist on bringing them.

Flares are utter crap. I've been to amazing games in the UK and not once saw a flare. They're absolutely unnecessary.

 

[Zidane98]

Yeah flares are crap. I wouldnt have a problem with the guy who threw it being on the receiving end in return from Glover.

Unfortunately the person on the receiving end of a crowd is highly unlikely going to be the moron throwing it. So it must always be unacceptable to throw a flare back into a crowd (or any dangerous item) - simply place it to the side of the ground and let security deal with it.


I would imagine there is a protocol around this at all professional sport.

 

[chef]

It'd be just as likely to fall into some innocent persons lap as it is in a try hard ultras one. I just don't see how its justifiable.

I think we need to change the way we treat life time bans, maybe it needs to be like England and you have to report to a police station while the game is on.

 

[Jatz]

It'd be just as likely to fall into some innocent persons lap as it is in a try hard ultras one. I just don't see how its justifiable.

I think we need to change the way we treat life time bans, maybe it needs to be like England and you have to report to a police station while the game is on.

I'm not convinced he deliberately threw it at the crowd. It's not like it went 10 rows back.

Ideally it wouldn't have landed back in the crowd but play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Zidane98]

It'd be just as likely to fall into some innocent persons lap as it is in a try hard ultras one. I just don't see how its justifiable.

I think we need to change the way we treat life time bans, maybe it needs to be like England and you have to report to a police station while the game is on.

Yes good idea. Plenty of the culprits have been identified as known troublemakers already banned from the club.


The other way is have facial recognition at the gates but that costs a fortune.



What surprised me was the total lack of security at the game. It was just like any other game. Obviously there had been significant fan unrest in the leadup. Put extra security on ffs. Don't understand how flares get in either, you have to open your bag and they did a pat down on every 4th person when I was entering.



Imagine what would have kicked off if crowds were allowed at the games following the Super League announcement in 2021. APL are utterly stupid to also announce something that was obviously going to be so deeply unpopular in the leadup to the Melbourne Derby.

 

[Zidane98]

I'm not convinced he deliberately threw it at the crowd. It's not like it went 10 rows back.

Ideally it wouldn't have landed back in the crowd but play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I don't think intent matters here. The fact is he did throw it in the crowd. And ultimately the person who cops it is very likely an innocent bystander so they weren't playing any stupid games. Izzo had multiple flares thrown at him and he didn't throw them anywhere, he put them down beside the ground and let security deal with it.

 

[Cruyff14]

I'm not convinced he deliberately threw it at the crowd. It's not like it went 10 rows back.

Ideally it wouldn't have landed back in the crowd but play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

He could have bloody launched it if he wanted to. There is no way he deliberately threw it into the crowd.

 

[SM]

He could have bloody launched it if he wanted to. There is no way he deliberately threw it into the crowd.

Huh? He absolutely deliberately threw it into the crowd, what are you on about?

 

[Jatz]

I don't think intent matters here. The fact is he did throw it in the crowd. And ultimately the person who cops it is very likely an innocent bystander so they weren't playing any stupid games. Izzo had multiple flares thrown at him and he didn't throw them anywhere, he put them down beside the ground and let security deal with it.

Sorry, won't ever agree on this. I hear what you're saying but I have zero problems with what he did.

 

[SM]

Sorry, won't ever agree on this. I hear what you're saying but I have zero problems with what he did.

I don't understand this. He had no need to peg it into the crowd, he could have put it to the side and not risked the safety of kids and innocent bystanders in the crowd.

 

[Zidane98]

Sorry, won't ever agree on this. I hear what you're saying but I have zero problems with what he did.

I just don't understand this. The opposition goalkeeper managed to not throw any flares back at the oppposition fans behind him at the other end. I cannot see how anyone can possibly condone him throwing a flare back in the crowd. Or any dangerous object whatever it may be. Simply not the right thing to do.

 

[Jatz]

I don't understand this. He had no need to peg it into the crowd, he could have put it to the side and not risked the safety of kids and innocent bystanders in the crowd.

I still don't think he deliberately did but even if he had, I'm still ok with it.

I know you disagree, that's fine. He shouldn't have to put up with that shit at his place of employment.

 

[SM]

I still don't think he deliberately did but even if he had, I'm still ok with it.

I know you disagree, that's fine. He shouldn't have to put up with that s**t at his place of employment.

Two wrongs don't make a right though, he shouldn't have to put up with it so why should an innocent bystander in the stand?

The first one he doesn't intend to as he lobs it underarm, the second he pegs into the crowd. Any suggestion it was unintentional is strange.

 

[Jatz]

Two wrongs don't make a right though, he shouldn't have to put up with it so why should an innocent bystander in the stand?

The first one he doesn't intend to as he lobs it underarm, the second he pegs into the crowd. Any suggestion it was unintentional is strange.

How do you know it hit an innocent bystander and not someone that lobbed it over anyway? It went 2 rows back and that's where most of the dickheads that leapt over came from.

If he wanted to throw it in, I suspect it would've gone 10 rows back. It's not like he picked someone out and threw it at them. He just lobbed it back there and it just cleared the fence.

 

[Quivorir]

Pegs it? C'mon mate. It went 2 metres further back than the first one he threw.

 

[SM]

Pegs it? C'mon mate. It went 2 metres further back than the first one he threw.

I feel like you haven't watched the footage if you say that, it's an overarm throw that launches through the air, how else would you describe it?

How do you know it hit an innocent bystander and not someone that lobbed it over anyway? It went 2 rows back and that's where most of the dickheads that leapt over came from.

If he wanted to throw it in, I suspect it would've gone 10 rows back. It's not like he picked someone out and threw it at them. He just lobbed it back there and it just cleared the fence.

So we're dealing in hypotheticals now? How do you know it didn't hit a kid in the eye? Like come on lol, he throws it into the crowd, it's the intent and action not the outcome that is the issue. Did Richarlison injure anyone when he incurred his suspension?

 

[Zidane98]

I still don't think he deliberately did but even if he had, I'm still ok with it.

I know you disagree, that's fine. He shouldn't have to put up with that s**t at his place of employment.

Can't understand this logic. Should have done the same as what Izzo did at the other end to defuse the situation. Not inflame it further. I don't know how it can be any more clearer.

 

[Quivorir]

I feel like you haven't watched the footage if you say that, it's an overarm throw that launches through the air, how else would you describe it?

Maybe our definition of peg is different but simply being an overarm throw doesn't mean he pegged it to me. Pegging it to me would be throwing with all his power. As I said, it went 2 metres further back. The way he chose to throw one v the other means nothing. Both were pretty clearly aimed to be just on the inside of the ground imo. The first throw he nailed, the 2nd went a bit too far.

He obviously thought he did nothing wrong or why else would he stand there with 100 people charging at him?

 

[Jatz]

Maybe our definition of peg is different but simply being an overarm throw doesn't mean he pegged it to me. Pegging it to me would be throwing with all his power. As I said, it went 2 metres further back. The way he chose to throw one v the other means nothing. Both were pretty clearly aimed to be just on the inside of the ground imo. The first throw he nailed, the 2nd went a bit too far.

He obviously thought he did nothing wrong or why else would he stand there with 100 people charging at him?

Absolutely agree with this.

 

[Jatz]

Can't understand this logic. Should have done the same as what Izzo did at the other end to defuse the situation. Not inflame it further. I don't know how it can be any more clearer.

Nice and clear now, those moronic campaigners have in all likelihood cost the Victory a home attendance for the foreseeable future.

 

[SM]

Maybe our definition of peg is different but simply being an overarm throw doesn't mean he pegged it to me. Pegging it to me would be throwing with all his power. As I said, it went 2 metres further back. The way he chose to throw one v the other means nothing. Both were pretty clearly aimed to be just on the inside of the ground imo. The first throw he nailed, the 2nd went a bit too far.

He obviously thought he did nothing wrong or why else would he stand there with 100 people charging at him?

Even if he thought he did nothing wrong, standing there was still moronic. To me overarm v underarm is a huge difference in intent, but looks like we disagree on that.