Pitch Invasion - What you think of it?

MaroonAndGreen

km79 wrote: »

I don't think I'd be able to move from my seat anyway due to my shock and my uncontrollable tears of joy
I get a bit weepy thinking about the possibility of it ( I wish I was joking cos im a grown man albeit an emotional one )

Theres many a man in Mayo that will be seen in tears when it happens!

premierstone

MaroonAndGreen wrote: »

If Mayo win the All Ireland, try and stop them fans getting on the pitch after waiting 62 years!

They simply won't get on the pitch, it is impossible in Croke Park, I like you assumed that no matter what they said etc that the sheer force of people would dictate that they would invade the pitch, however the level of security there is such that this will not happen, I mean in 2010 when Tipp ended the drive for five and we were kept off it, I can't see it being any different.

InchicoreDude

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who could condone the end of this. Great spectacle and a great end to a match that meant something to those there.

Nobody denies that it is a great spectacle.

It clearly is.

But that is not justification for retaining what is a dangerous situation.

keane2097

InchicoreDude wrote: »

Nobody denies that it is a great spectacle.

It clearly is.

But that is not justification for retaining what is a dangerous situation.

Letting people into the stadium itself is a dangerous situation. Packing people like sardines onto concrete steps is a lot more dangerous than letting them onto a field afterwards. Why not ban supporters at matches entirely?

InchicoreDude

keane2097 wrote: »

Letting people into the stadium itself is a dangerous situation. Packing people like sardines onto concrete steps is a lot more dangerous than letting them onto a field afterwards. Why not ban supporters at matches entirely?

What if you are a player and do not want to be swamped by tonnes of supporters??? How do they get protected from a pitch invasion?

keane2097

InchicoreDude wrote: »

What if you are a player and do not want to be swamped by tonnes of supporters??? How do they get protected from a pitch invasion?

If you take a shot at answering my question I'm sure I can take a shot at yours.

bucketybuck

InchicoreDude wrote: »

What if you are a player and do not want to be swamped by tonnes of supporters??? How do they get protected from a pitch invasion?

I thought it was horrible seeing on TV one of the Monaghan players trying to make his way across the field immediately after the match on Sunday. Instead of expressing his joy, he had his shoulders hunched and looked nervous as a stream of kids and beer bellied fans flowed past him, slapping him on the back and trying to shake his hand.

I think it was Paul Finlay, though I could be wrong, and he just looked nervous when he should have been able to relax.

Happyman42

bucketybuck wrote: »

I thought it was horrible seeing on TV one of the Monaghan players trying to make his way across the field immediately after the match on Sunday. Instead of expressing his joy, he had his shoulders hunched and looked nervous as a stream of kids and beer bellied fans flowed past him, slapping him on the back and trying to shake his hand.

I think it was Paul Finlay, though I could be wrong, and he just looked nervous when he should have been able to relax.

He must have learned to love it so, he was almost the last man ordered back onto the victory bus at the celebrations last night. He shook some amount of hands and signed hundreds of jerseys and programmes and got slapped thousands of times, as well as hugged and chairlifted.
I think people are overly concerned about this stuff, the players clearly love it, heavan knows there are plenty of down days.

And I love the way people who are against this tradition can't help with the derogatory remarks... 'beer bellied' :rolleyes: In fact I'm not sure if 'kids' is used to indicate some kind of pestilential scourge.

InchicoreDude

keane2097 wrote: »

If you take a shot at answering my question I'm sure I can take a shot at yours.

Sorry, I didnt realise your question was serious. I thought you just asked it to make your point......

So why not ban supporters at matches? Well, they are a source of revenue, they inspire players to perform better, the GAA would not exist without supporters. There is always an element of risk with large crowds. That risk should be minimised. And you are not minimising the risk by allowing pitch invasions.

Some people would agree with you about the terraces being dangerous too. I have been in some dodgy crowds outside the Hogan Stand too.

But I have been at concerts in Croke Park and you have thousands on the pitch for them. At the concerts, you have metal barriers controlling the crowd. You cant do that 2 seconds after a GAA match with people pushing to get onto the pitch. Pitch invasions involve putting people onto the pitch without a proper crowd control mechanism.

Didn't an AI football winning captain have to start his speech one year by asking the crowd to pull back? I doubt that is what he wanted to be saying at that particular time.

This thread is 3 pages long. The best argument I have seen for the retention of pitch invasions is that "it looks great". I agree they do look great. But in my opinion, that is not justification for continuing with pitch invasions.

Taffy Kat

keane2097 wrote: »

Letting people into the stadium itself is a dangerous situation. Packing people like sardines onto concrete steps is a lot more dangerous than letting them onto a field afterwards. Why not ban supporters at matches entirely?

Ban supporters at matches entirely? Maggie was a fan of that idea!

Seriously though... what you say is on the button. Consider this scenario:

God forbid it happens but lets imagine that one day there is a big match on in any stadium in Ireland (or the UK for that matter, not sure about other countries) and a fire breaks out. The instruction, as far as I know, is for the stewards and the forces of order to get the supporters safely ONTO the pitch and to try to stop people leaving by exiting the stadium. When people try to exit the stadium in a fire situation, it leads to panicking because exits are narrow and everybody wants to get out of them that instant which can lead to accidents! In the centre of the pitch there is very little possibility of being harmed by the fire, as damp grass (like we usually have here) doesn't burn too easily. It may be problematic at the moment because the grass is very dry and liable to catch fire (hence why I don't hazard a guess to the situation in other countries), but generally speaking the fans would be safer on the field of play than trying to exit the stadium until the fire brigade arrived.

premierstone

Happyman42 wrote: »

He must have learned to love it so, he was almost the last man ordered back onto the victory bus at the celebrations last night. He shook some amount of hands and signed hundreds of jerseys and programmes and got slapped thousands of times, as well as hugged and chairlifted.
I think people are overly concerned about this stuff, the players clearly love it, heavan knows there are plenty of down days.

And I love the way people who are against this tradition can't help with the derogatory remarks... 'beer bellied' :rolleyes: In fact I'm not sure if 'kids' is used to indicate some kind of pestilential scourge.

Did the Limerick player who ended up in hospital with an injured eye like it? Or what about the 27 individual cases that were taken in 2012 against the GAA by supporters claiming that they were injured on the field after a game?

ProudDUB

premierstone wrote: »

Or what about the 27 individual cases that were taken in 2012 against the GAA by supporters claiming that they were injured on the field after a game?

Supporters have no business being on the pitch in the first place. Surely there is a way around the GAA getting hit by the compo culture by putting up signs at pitch side telling people to keep off the pitch, and that the GAA accepts no responsibility for what happens to them if they don't. Kinda like car parks put up signs saying that you are parking there at your own risk and, if you are stupid enough to do something that you shouldn't be doing (like leaving valuables in plain sight) then they accept no responsibility for your car getting broken into.

premierstone

ProudDUB wrote: »

Supporters have no business being on the pitch in the first place. Surely there is a way around the GAA getting hit by the compo culture by putting up signs at pitch side telling people to keep off the pitch, and that the GAA accepts no responsibility for what happens to them if they don't. Kinda like car parks put up signs saying that you are parking there at your own risk and, if you are stupid enough to do something that you shouldn't be doing (like leaving valuables in plain sight) then they accept no responsibility for your car getting broken into.

That is what the GAA have done, thats why we are having this whole discussion in the first place no?

They have activley advised patrons to refrain from entering the field and put measures in place to discourage it.

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

keane2097 wrote: »

If done properly, letting people onto the pitch would end up being safer than people leaving the ground. Could certainly be done in a more controlled manner than the stampede for the exits at the end of a game. Decrepit old fcukers climbing over the seats and climbing over peoples' shoulders to get through the tunnel at the top.

Why nobody ever seems to fear for lives piling into narrow enclosed usually slippery passages of concrete out of the grounds but the bleeding hearts arrive en masse for people walking through a gate into a field always baffles me.

Letting fans onto the pitch would probably make it safer for people leaving the ground as well as you're splitting the crush.

What?

keane2097

InchicoreDude wrote: »

Sorry, I didnt realise your question was serious. I thought you just asked it to make your point......

So why not ban supporters at matches? Well, they are a source of revenue, they inspire players to perform better, the GAA would not exist without supporters. There is always an element of risk with large crowds. That risk should be minimised. And you are not minimising the risk by allowing pitch invasions.

Some people would agree with you about the terraces being dangerous too. I have been in some dodgy crowds outside the Hogan Stand too.

But I have been at concerts in Croke Park and you have thousands on the pitch for them. At the concerts, you have metal barriers controlling the crowd. You cant do that 2 seconds after a GAA match with people pushing to get onto the pitch. Pitch invasions involve putting people onto the pitch without a proper crowd control mechanism.

Didn't an AI football winning captain have to start his speech one year by asking the crowd to pull back? I doubt that is what he wanted to be saying at that particular time.

This thread is 3 pages long. The best argument I have seen for the retention of pitch invasions is that "it looks great". I agree they do look great. But in my opinion, that is not justification for continuing with pitch invasions.

So dangerous crowds are ok because revenue. What if we charge a fiver a head to get on the pitch afterwards?

All you're doing here is picking an arbitrary point in a long chain of potentially dangerous occurrences, from sitting into your car to getting back to your house that night, and saying we're going to cut out this bit of it.

The level of danger inherent in pitch invasions is minimal, and you can't make an argument that they ought to be banned on the basis of a minimal threat to safety unless you're prepared to make a case for preventing people doing other things that threaten them to a similar level, e.g. attending games in the first place. If the danger of pitch invasion is too great to be acceptable, then surely no amount of revenue or even the fact that the GAA wouldn't exist without supporters is enough to make the number of potential injuries and deaths worthwhile?

The fact that there has never been a fatality in well over 100 years of uncontrolled pitch invasions stands as a fact. 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, in which case we're back to banning everything because it's a significant threat to peoples' safety.

The only argument necessary for retention of pitch invasions by the way is that people like to do it. If you want to stop me doing something I want to do it's up to you to give me a very good reason why. "It's dangerous" doesn't cut the mustard. There are levels of danger we all choose to put up with every single day because that's what life is.

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.

ProudDUB

premierstone wrote: »

That is what the GAA have done, thats why we are having this whole discussion in the first place no?

I am well aware of why we are having this discussion in the first place. However it is not a simple black and white matter. If the GAA don't want fans going on the pitch, but the fans want to and will go on the pitch, to celebrate big wins, how do you keep everyone happy?

That is why I suggested putting Enter At Your Own Risk checks and balances in place that absolves the GAA of any legal consequences of people doing themselves a mischief when they are on the pitch. If the GAA no longer have to be as paranoid about the compo culture as they currently are, wouldn't everyone benefit?

keane2097

ProudDUB wrote: »

I am well aware of why we are having this discussion in the first place. However it is not a simple black and white matter. If the GAA don't want fans going on the pitch, but the fans want to and will go on the pitch, to celebrate big wins, how do you keep everyone happy?

That is why I suggested putting Enter At Your Own Risk checks and balances in place that absolves the GAA of any legal consequences of people doing themselves a mischief when they are on the pitch. If the GAA no longer have to be as paranoid about the compo culture as they currently are, wouldn't everyone benefit?

The relevant act is here:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/print.html

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

And I love the way people who are against this tradition can't help with the derogatory remarks... 'beer bellied' :rolleyes: In fact I'm not sure if 'kids' is used to indicate some kind of pestilential scourge.

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.

keane2097

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.

I don't think mind-reading through television screens really adds anything to the discussion. Deccie Hannon was on Second Captains last week gushing about how amazing celebrating on the pitch with the fans was.

Even if Finlay was to come out and say the opposite, where does that move the discussion? Some players love it, some players hate it? The obvious solution is to do what they did every year in Croke Park - police form a cordon that only players are allowed inside. Just give players five minutes to celebrate with each other on the pitch then those who wish can make their way beyond the cordon, open the gates and let those fans who wish to celebrate with the fans do so.

Happyman42

premierstone wrote: »

Did the Limerick player who ended up in hospital with an injured eye like it? Or what about the 27 individual cases that were taken in 2012 against the GAA by supporters claiming that they were injured on the field after a game?

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.

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?