Jump to content

Crowd Trouble At Sunderland V Newcastle


BlueBeard

Recommended Posts

I was listening to the second half commentary of the Sunderland v Newcastle game this afternoon, and apparently it all kicked off.

Joey Barton was warming up pitchside and was pelted with bottles from the Sunderland fans, then police moved in as the Geordies started getting the hump. Couple of pitch invasions, one where a couple of w**kers had a go at Shay Given. And to top it off, the commentator claimed that there was a big fight going on behind the goal between rival fans - just like the old days, think I'll start going to games again! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Haven't seen anything yet, but I'm sure something will turn up on YouTube before long. The game will be on MOTD tonight, but they refuse to show anything interesting happening in the crowd, unfortunately.

watched it on sky and it was kicking off at the end of the game. sunderland fans were winding the newcastle lot up and they bit. the police kept them apart for the most part, but it looked pretty bad. apparently barton had a set to with a sunderland fan before he even got on. talk about not learning from your mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I heard on 5Live, Barton wasn't to blame at all. Apparently he was warming up before coming on as a sub and was getting dog's abuse from the Mackems - fair enough - but then someone threw a bottle at him, and that turned into a shower of bottles as more and more wanted to join in. All Barton did in response was to kiss the badge on his shirt - normally I hate badge-kissing, but under those circumstances I don't blame him at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


He's not fit to be pulling on any football shirt. Shame on Kinnear for naming him in the squad.

Sorry I disagree. There is no law, written or unwritten that requires a professional footballer to be a role model. The bloke may be a complete and utter scumbag but he's done his time. Maybe he will learn from his mistakes, maybe not. Stranger things have happened. If he commits a similar offence in the future, he'll no doubt get banged up again for a longer period. That's generally (give or take a bribe or ten) how the law works in this country.

Sorry but the argument that "you've been inside therefore you should not be continued to allow to play professional football" just doesn't work for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I disagree. There is no law, written or unwritten that requires a professional footballer to be a role model. The bloke may be a complete and utter scumbag but he's done his time. Maybe he will learn from his mistakes, maybe not. Stranger things have happened. If he commits a similar offence in the future, he'll no doubt get banged up again for a longer period. That's generally (give or take a bribe or ten) how the law works in this country.

Sorry but the argument that "you've been inside therefore you should not be continued to allow to play professional football" just doesn't work for me.

Agree with that 100%, Lofty! <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sorry I disagree. There is no law, written or unwritten that requires a professional footballer to be a role model. The bloke may be a complete and utter scumbag but he's done his time. Maybe he will learn from his mistakes, maybe not. Stranger things have happened. If he commits a similar offence in the future, he'll no doubt get banged up again for a longer period. That's generally (give or take a bribe or ten) how the law works in this country.

Sorry but the argument that "you've been inside therefore you should not be continued to allow to play professional football" just doesn't work for me.

Would you pick a murderer in your team if you were a manager? Or would you dismiss the charge as irrelevant given that he can still kick a ball?

Granted there is no law that says you can't, but there are certain standards that should be upheld by teams, and picking someone such as Barton reflects very badly on the team and manager in my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you pick a murderer in your team if you were a manager? Or would you dismiss the charge as irrelevant given that he can still kick a ball?

Granted there is no law that says you can't, but there are certain standards that should be upheld by teams, and picking someone such as Barton reflects very badly on the team and manager in my eyes.

Aren't you being a little melodramatic here? Not to mention self-righteous.

I'm not talking about dismissing any charge. The point I'm making is that following a conviction, once the sentence has been served, then any individual should be free to go about their normal trade. And even though professional footballers are exceptionally privileged, this is their normal occupation we're talking about. Who are you or I or anyone else to judge, once someone has served their time, what they should and should not be allowed to do for a living? Given the obvious exceptions, such as not allowing nonces to work anywhere near children. So please don't try and use that as a counter argument, because thre is no comparison.

Apparently Barton has also stopped drinking. If he's not simply merely blaming drink for his past behaviour, but recognising that it was both a symptom and a cause, and that ultimately he alone was responsible for his behaviour, then in my opinion, he certainly deserves the chance to prove himself.

On the other hand, if he f**ks up again, the chances are that he'll end up back inside, depending on the nature of the offence, quite probably for so long that when he gets out he'll no longer be capable of playing professional football at any kind of level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about dismissing any charge. The point I'm making is that following a conviction, once the sentence has been served, then any individual should be free to go about their normal trade. And even though professional footballers are exceptionally privileged, this is their normal occupation we're talking about. Who are you or I or anyone else to judge, once someone has served their time, what they should and should not be allowed to do for a living? Given the obvious exceptions, such as not allowing nonces to work anywhere near children. So please don't try and use that as a counter argument, because thre is no comparison.

I do agree with the sentiment that once a sentence is served then a person should not be denied the right to ply their trade as a judicial system has to allow for rehabilitation and also provide people with the opportunity to rebuild their own lives - without these two things the rate of re-offending would be sky high as everyone needs to make money and if you deny people legal means they will inevitably turn to illegal means.

However there are a lot of occupations where being found guilty of a crime would mean instant dismissal and the likelihood of being employed in the same field would be remote as you would need to declare the crime you were found guilty of on your application form. I know if I was ever imprisoned I would be out of a job instantly.

So I suppose I do agree with you lofty however I think there is a much wider issue of consistency that needs to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree with the sentiment that once a sentence is served then a person should not be denied the right to ply their trade as a judicial system has to allow for rehabilitation and also provide people with the opportunity to rebuild their own lives - without these two things the rate of re-offending would be sky high as everyone needs to make money and if you deny people legal means they will inevitably turn to illegal means.

However there are a lot of occupations where being found guilty of a crime would mean instant dismissal and the likelihood of being employed in the same field would be remote as you would need to declare the crime you were found guilty of on your application form. I know if I was ever imprisoned I would be out of a job instantly.

So I suppose I do agree with you lofty however I think there is a much wider issue of consistency that needs to be addressed.

This is the heart of the issue. If there were some pre-set policy written into the rules somewhere, whether by the FA, Football League, FIFA or Uefa or whoever, then there would be no argument. A conviction for xxx offence would enail yyy consequences. If penalties are laid down in writing, then everyone knows where they stand - if you want to be a professional footballer than you don't do this, or if you do then you need to face the consequences. And those consequences need to be stated as specifically as possibl,e. I do believe that there should be a way back, under certain circumstances, provided that appropriate rehabilitation and so on is undertaken first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Do you think it is an issue for football to resolve though Lofty? Should it not be covered by more far reaching legislation? i.e. why should a footballer get to keep his job if you or I wouldn't? Why should a footballer get to move to a new club when taxi drivers often get rejected or a license on the grounds of having a criminal record?

Now clearly there are specific cases which need to be treated differently (your example of the pedophiles being the obvious one and also if say the taxi driver was actually found guilty of GBH) however in a more general basis should we be allowing individual legislative bodies to determine the treatment of this situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideally I think it should be down to the football authorities to decide - with appropriate legal guidelines.

Howeve, because the amount of money available to your average Premier league footballer is enough to buy the very best legal advice available, and because money is power; money talks, justice is a case of my lawyer can out-argue your lawyer - there is a better than average possibility for right and wrong to become a peripheral issue.

The more you think about it, the more I think you have to realise it's not such a straightforward issue as it first appears. The footballing authorities could actually impose whatever sanctions they saw fit, simply by bringing charges of bringing the game into disrepute. But then again such penalties could be legally challenged - the European Court and the Human Rights Act only serve to complicate matters even further.

The alternative, which is arguably fairer, is to judge each case on an individual basis. For instance:

Player 1 stomps team-mate/stranger/whoever. Player 1gets banged up. Player 1 gets out. Makes right noises. Changes behaviour. Uproar eventually dies down. Life goes on. Or:

Player 1 stomps team-mate. Player 1 gets banged up. Player 1 gets out. Makes right noises. Doesn't put his money where his mouth is. Stomps another team-mate/hospitalises another stranger. Player gets banged up again. Player 1 obviously hasn't learned his lesson so is demonstrably a danger to colleagues and/or society so faces the full consequences of his action, from the law and from his employers.

Player 2 stomps team-mate. Player 2 attacks member of the press for daring to question him on the matter. While awaiting trial Player 2 gets out of car and batters motorist in road-rage frenzy. Player 2 is obviously a complete raving nutter who is a menace to society and to anyon unfortunate enough to get on the wrong side of him. Player 2 gets banged up with no chance whatsoever of future employment within professional football in any capacity.

Very simplistic, I know, but you get the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!