Couldn't find anywhere else to post this. Once again we are going to be summoned to the footballing courts. This is being reported all over the place, so after looking at several sources you find different takes on it. Malmo v Chelsea Face charges of 'missile throwing' and   'pitch invasions' when you look into it the so called 'missiles' were spent flare casings 'popular with most european fans' and plastic beer glasses,not Chelsea. The 'pitch invasion' was a Malmo supporter went on to the pitch to ask for Hazards shirt, which he gave him and said there was no problem.

Anyone at the game know anything or is this another media dig at Chelsea again.

Its not really a media dig when they are literally reporting on what UEFA are doing. I was a bit confused why we are being charged for a home supporter coming onto the pitch though.

The plank Dan Levene reported the "plastic cup missile throwing" when it happened on twitter. 

Edited February 16, 20197 yr by bisright1

We’re being charged because the fan who rushed the pitch is believed to be a Chelsea fan, despite appearing to run on from the Malmo end.

Fans are not allowed to rush the pitch and grab hold of players for obvious reasons so UEFA is right to take action. The media are right to report what happened. Malamo are also being charged for other things. On what planet can this be considered a ‘dig’?

18 minutes ago, bluedave said:

We’re being charged because the fan who rushed the pitch is believed to be a Chelsea fan, despite appearing to run on from the Malmo end.

Fans are not allowed to rush the pitch and grab hold of players for obvious reasons so UEFA is right to take action. The media are right to report what happened. Malamo are also being charged for other things. On what planet can this be considered a ‘dig’?

Agree, 

Still don't know what uefa are doing though. I doubt this Chelsea fan is even close to being in the control of the club. It was an away fixture in a foreign country and we didn't sell him a ticket. What are we expected to do! It should be Malmö charged. 

I don’t think Malmo should be charged for the idiotic behaviour of a Chelsea fan. I also wouldn’t want us to be charged for the idiotic behaviour of visiting fans. That would be a recipe for disaster and would possibly incentivise visiting fans to misbehave.

51 minutes ago, bluedave said:

We’re being charged because the fan who rushed the pitch is believed to be a Chelsea fan, despite appearing to run on from the Malmo end.

Fans are not allowed to rush the pitch and grab hold of players for obvious reasons so UEFA is right to take action. The media are right to report what happened. Malamo are also being charged for other things. On what planet can this be considered a ‘dig’?

Some forum members have become scousers: always the victim. Boo-hoo, everybody conspires against Chelsea...

I always thought it was the home club who was responsible for the security inside the ground, so whether away or home supporters misbehave, it is down to the home club to have the security in place to control it. And for that reason, I thought that only the home club, in this case Malmo, should be investigated by UEFA. But if the rules are different, then UEFA is right to investigate the incidents. Although I didn't see on tv any of these incidents but a really dense fog at the beginning which I thought were from flares in the home supporters end.

By the way, ManU has been charged for the bottle throwing to Di Maria.

1 hour ago, bluedave said:

I don’t think Malmo should be charged for the idiotic behaviour of a Chelsea fan. I also wouldn’t want us to be charged for the idiotic behaviour of visiting fans. That would be a recipe for disaster and would possibly incentivise visiting fans to misbehave.

My personal point would be that the guy was in the home section so Malmo should be responsible. What determines who is a "Chelsea" fan? If he was someone Chelsea should have known about he surely would have been in the away section ... I can't imagine tickets for Malmo away were that hard to get. 

2 hours ago, bluedave said:

I don’t think Malmo should be charged for the idiotic behaviour of a Chelsea fan. I also wouldn’t want us to be charged for the idiotic behaviour of visiting fans. That would be a recipe for disaster and would possibly incentivise visiting fans to misbehave.

Unfortunately that's the rules, the home team is responsible for the marshaling and control of all the fans in the ground. We've been done in the past for the actions of visiting fans. 

How is this is any way media being anti Chelsea? Get off that victim mentality mate.

3 hours ago, Valerie said:

Some forum members have become scousers: always the victim. Boo-hoo, everybody conspires against Chelsea...

Yorkley? I thought you’d been banned 

I think the whole point of finding the club who the fan supports it’s to help keep these incidents down because fans shouldn’t want to tarnish their own clubs reputation. Unfortunately some people are just f**king stupid, selfish asshats though. 

Why and how he got in the home end needs looking at too. 

12 minutes ago, Munkworth said:

Yorkley? I thought you’d been banned 

I think the whole point of finding the club who the fan supports it’s to help keep these incidents down because fans shouldn’t want to tarnish their own clubs reputation. Unfortunately some people are just f**king stupid, selfish asshats though. 

Why and how he got in the home end needs looking at too. 

I'd be very surprised if he wasn't from Malmö. 

4 hours ago, dkw said:

Unfortunately that's the rules, the home team is responsible for the marshaling and control of all the fans in the ground. We've been done in the past for the actions of visiting fans. 

That’s stupid if true. You can’t stop fans from from being idiots, and you can’t stop somebody running on the pitch unless you surround it by a big cage, which is obviously a bad idea. Probably the fairest way would be to charge the fan directly somehow, although I’m not sure he actually did anything illegal.

1 hour ago, bluedave said:

That’s stupid if true. You can’t stop fans from from being idiots, and you can’t stop somebody running on the pitch unless you surround it by a big cage, which is obviously a bad idea. Probably the fairest way would be to charge the fan directly somehow, although I’m not sure he actually did anything illegal.

If you enter the field then it's immediately illegal I think (especially if your called bakayoko).

5 hours ago, Munkworth said:

Yorkley? I thought you’d been banned 

I think the whole point of finding the club who the fan supports it’s to help keep these incidents down because fans shouldn’t want to tarnish their own clubs reputation. Unfortunately some people are just f**king stupid, selfish asshats though. 

Why and how he got in the home end needs looking at too. 

Well, you go to the Bridge so you will have seen away fans amongst the Chelsea supporters, especially in European games (CL and UEL). Last season I was surrounded by Bar$a supporters at the Bridge, and have even seated behind scousers at the Bridge.

The home club IS responsible for security, so it is their duty to control home and away fans. Some away fans may bring flares, Bu it is up to the home club to check every person entering the ground and have security to stop fans running into each other or into the pitch, so if any dangerous item goes inside or an idiot runs into the pitch, it is down to the home club to have had the measures to prevent this. It was down to Malmo to do it, and to have stopped any away fan from seating in the home stands.

16 hours ago, Munkworth said:

Yorkley? I thought you’d been banned 

 

I was channelling my inner Yorkley   Someone has to fill the void!

No one found guilty of racism as far as I'm aware yet the Telegraph chooses this picture on a feature by Raheem Sterling about racism in English football.

9 hours ago, bluehaze said:

No one found guilty of racism as far as I'm aware yet the Telegraph chooses this picture on a feature by Raheem Sterling about racism in English football.

I think you'll forever be frustrated by that. I am going to be. 

Even the argument, they were shouting aggressively at him because the media made everyone hate him, isn't true. They were shouting because he'd just kicked Luiz in the chest! No one at Chelsea gives a sh*t about sterling.

11 hours ago, bluehaze said:

No one found guilty of racism as far as I'm aware yet the Telegraph chooses this picture on a feature by Raheem Sterling about racism in English football.

I hope the former ST with the angry face gets image rights.

12 hours ago, bluehaze said:

No one found guilty of racism as far as I'm aware yet the Telegraph chooses this picture on a feature by Raheem Sterling about racism in English football.

I'm still convinced that he didn't say anything racist. Sterling's reaction would've been different and so would the black bloke who was near him. 

1 hour ago, Slojo said:

I'm still convinced that he didn't say anything racist. Sterling's reaction would've been different and so would the black bloke who was near him. 

He didn't. Professional lip readers even said he didn't say anything racist, that little bit of information has been buried by the press though because it doesn't suit their agenda. The police looked into it and you would think by now they would have charged him if he had said anything racist, but they haven't.

He is owed an apology by those that called him a racist but it will never happen. This whole incident is a perfect example of why I tend to avoid reading anything from the media.

50 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

He didn't. Professional lip readers even said he didn't say anything racist, that little bit of information has been buried by the press though because it doesn't suit their agenda. The police looked into it and you would think by now they would have charged him if he had said anything racist, but they haven't.

He is owed an apology by those that called him a racist but it will never happen. This whole incident is a perfect example of why I tend to avoid reading anything from the media.

I wonder if he got his job back?

Hope so

2 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

He didn't. Professional lip readers even said he didn't say anything racist, that little bit of information has been buried by the press though because it doesn't suit their agenda. The police looked into it and you would think by now they would have charged him if he had said anything racist, but they haven't.

He is owed an apology by those that called him a racist but it will never happen. This whole incident is a perfect example of why I tend to avoid reading anything from the media.

I'm pretty certain Sterling also backtracked on it, at first he admitted he didn't know if he had been racially abused or not, then he starts saying "I was racially abused". 

3 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

He didn't. Professional lip readers even said he didn't say anything racist, that little bit of information has been buried by the press though because it doesn't suit their agenda. The police looked into it and you would think by now they would have charged him if he had said anything racist, but they haven't.

He is owed an apology by those that called him a racist but it will never happen. This whole incident is a perfect example of why I tend to avoid reading anything from the media.

He should be pursuing these c**ts through the courts, they destroyed his life on supposition and guess work, the mouthy "celebrity" pricks on twitter etc couldnt wait to put the boot in, with or without evidence. We were flavour of the month as a club and no one now cares if it was true or not, they still go with it being true as seen in the Mails picture. f**king vermin the lot of them.

It would be a waste of time IMO, legal fees just in building a defence with experts etc.

I know with some cases even though the judge recommends something sometimes the jury goes the other way on principle because they agree an offence was reasonable given the circumstances.

With a jury of 12 probably not many football fans it would be a gamble.