Are STAR going to do anything to help those banned?

[M4 Junction 11]

Why did they send it to the Met? Is it TVP who have banned our fans or the club/stewards? Why can't Chelsea ban their own?

Send to the Met =

it's oxf*rd easy to ban our own but we don't want to take action against away fans because its too difficult so we'll pass it onto someone else who wont take any action either

[TFF]

Are the bans not for violent behaviour?

I haven't yet heard of anyone being banned for standing (though having been warned they could have no complaints if they were).

Lots of folk bleating because the nasty stewards told them off, but no bans.

Anyone banned for throwing stuff at the away supporters deserves what they get IMO.

[Royal Lady]

say, for example, a chelsea supporter threw something at you - might you not, just possibly, in the heat of the moment - THROW IT BACK?

[Wycombe Royal]

say, for example, a chelsea supporter threw something at you - might you not, just possibly, in the heat of the moment - THROW IT BACK?

No. I'd just ignore them and I would expext the majority of mature people would do the same.

[M4 Junction 11]

Anyone banned for throwing stuff at the away supporters deserves what they get IMO.

Is that the same treatment as the away fans get for throwing stuff at the home supporters?

[The_Cat]

say, for example, a chelsea supporter threw something at you - might you not, just possibly, in the heat of the moment - THROW IT BACK?

You threw something RL?

[Wycombe Royal]

Anyone banned for throwing stuff at the away supporters deserves what they get IMO.

Is that the same treatment as the away fans get for throwing stuff at the home supporters?

It's quite simple. RFC fans attend every home match, the away fans just one. Surely it is obvious why they concentrate their efforts on "sorting out" the home fans? They don't want a repeat of it at every home match and therefore they ban the home fans involved.

I don't understand why people can't see it from RFC's perspective.

[Royal Lady]

say, for example, a chelsea supporter threw something at you - might you not, just possibly, in the heat of the moment - THROW IT BACK?

No. I'd just ignore them and I would expext the majority of mature people would do the same.

Sadly, they're not all mature though. Some of them are teenagers - whose natural reaction is to chuck stuff back I'd say. I don't even know anyone who was banned or whatever, I'm just putting a different viewpoint across.

[Wycombe Royal]

say, for example, a chelsea supporter threw something at you - might you not, just possibly, in the heat of the moment - THROW IT BACK?

No. I'd just ignore them and I would expext the majority of mature people would do the same.

Sadly, they're not all mature though. Some of them are teenagers - whose natural reaction is to chuck stuff back I'd say. I don't even know anyone who was banned or whatever, I'm just putting a different viewpoint across.

I fully understand your point, hence why I used the word "mature". Those who do throw things (even in retaliation) need to be taught a lesson and a ban would certainly do that (but I would start with a shorter ban even for throwing objects and then lengthen it for repeat offenders).

[SpaceCruiser]

say, for example, a chelsea supporter threw something at you - might you not, just possibly, in the heat of the moment - THROW IT BACK?

No. I'd just ignore them and I would expext the majority of mature people would do the same.

Surely that depends on what is thrown.

[Wycombe Royal]

say, for example, a chelsea supporter threw something at you - might you not, just possibly, in the heat of the moment - THROW IT BACK?

No. I'd just ignore them and I would expext the majority of mature people would do the same.

Surely that depends on what is thrown.

No, not at all.

[TFF]

Anyone banned for throwing stuff at the away supporters deserves what they get IMO.

Is that the same treatment as the away fans get for throwing stuff at the home supporters?

It should be but as already said, STAR and RFC can't do a whole lot about that.

say, for example, a chelsea supporter threw something at you - might you not, just possibly, in the heat of the moment - THROW IT BACK?

No. This has happened to me at Wolves (where I covered up as best as possible) and on the Southbank (Where I just moved away).

The trouble with reacting is that the situation just escalates. You lob something back it might hit someone who didn't throw anything at you. So they chuck it back at you and hit someone else...

Fighting outside the ground is one thing but indiscriminately chucking missiles into a crowd that doubtless included children is another. They're lucky they're just banned and not locked up.

[M4 Junction 11]

Would I be correct in suggesting that Wycombe Royal is an employee of Reading F.C.
and perhaps wears a yellow jacket on match days

[Wycombe Royal]

Would I be correct in suggesting that Wycombe Royal is an employee of Reading F.C.
and perhaps wears a yellow jacket on match days

No, you would be incorrect. But thanks for the insult.

[M4 Junction 11]

Would I be correct in suggesting that Wycombe Royal is an employee of Reading F.C.
and perhaps wears a yellow jacket on match days

No, you would be incorrect. But thanks for the insult.

I think you would make a good steward

[SpaceCruiser]

say, for example, a chelsea supporter threw something at you - might you not, just possibly, in the heat of the moment - THROW IT BACK?

No. I'd just ignore them and I would expext the majority of mature people would do the same.

Surely that depends on what is thrown.

No, not at all.

Not even a paper plane?

[M4 Junction 11]

paper plane could take someones eye out

[Wycombe Royal]

Would I be correct in suggesting that Wycombe Royal is an employee of Reading F.C.
and perhaps wears a yellow jacket on match days

No, you would be incorrect. But thanks for the insult.

I think you would make a good steward

[weybridgewanderer]

Regardless of people's opinions, if it's against the stadium's rules, the club needs to enforce it.

Whose rule is it that we're not allowed to stand?
The stadiums or the F.A.'s?
What's the argument for this rule anyway. If you have a like minded section of the crowd that want to stand (in front of their seats) who decides they can't and why?
If anyone says health and safety: what stats are there for injuries to people standing in an all-seater stadium?
Can we not try and work with the club on this instead of against it?
Give us a (lenient approach to) standing section?!

Its neither the FA nor the clubs rule

It is the law and is what gets the safety certificate for the stadium issued.

The local authority who issue the safety certificate would decides they can't stand

Its really not in the clubs hands to allow a standing section you would need to get a change in the law.

[STAR Voice]

There seems to be a bit of confusion on what sort of bans these are - they're not "Football Banning Orders" under the appropriate Act, which are requested by the Police for a variety of offences (in my opinion too many, but that's a different argument) and imposed by magistrates. They apply across all designated football grounds (i.e. top 5 tiers) and also oinvolve things like surrender of passports when international matches are not. That's wat most people thibnk of when they talk about "football bans".

These are "local bans", which only apply to the MadStad, and which RFC, like any private organisationhas the legal right to apply on their property.

As previously stated, we're happy to take up the case (both with RFC and via the FSF if required) of anyone who is unjustly banned - and CCTV evidence is available (with the relevant consent) for anyone who wants to argue against their ban.

As I sidenote, in my FSF role, I have had a number of long discussions with both FA & FL about the case of Alan Liptropp, who has been banned from Gillingham for having a public diagreement with the Gills Chairman. Many woul say he's lucky but his local ban is clearly njust and is being fought and argued against consistently.