Sanctions From ACL Flare Incident

[wendybr]

 

 

 

 

 

I love the flares. I'm sorry... I just do. I hate the stupid over reactions and irrelevant punishments handed out by the FFA.

 

I would be more than happy to take you out in a boat and strand you on a raft well off shore with a bucket full of the bastards, then you can rip away to your hearts content. No one might see you in time of course, but at least you will have gone out how you would have wanted and we will be one flare fanatic less, win win situation.

You'd be more than happy to be an accomplice in ones death and take pride in it, yet you sit on your ******* moral high ground about flares. Nice one.

Look I've never ripped a flare nor do I sit in the rbb. I just love the look of them within a football context (rendering your boat solution irrelevant).

I would never light one because I don't want the club to suffer but some decisions just really piss me off. As one has mentioned already, I don't like the fact that some people aren't allowed to have an opinion without people like you making personal attacks.

I'll admit, I don't know much when it comes to flares. I just think they add extra atmosphere that's all. I'm not a fanatic.

Is there anyway it could be used safely and regulated? It just seems that people are going to use them and if they are going to do it discreetly, clumsily and without warning then that would be more dangerous. But then again, like I said I know nothing about them so not sure if regulated use is even an option.

And keep to the issue instead of gratuitous personal attacks. That way we can engage in a constructive discussion rather than forum fascism.

No Jocosmic.

 

You are not allowed to admit you like them.

 

Even if you haven't ripped one and never plan on ripping one.

 

The Thought Police will hunt you down.

 

 

It's quite funny how everyone claims to be "open and welcoming to the Wanderers family", but if you dare have a different opinion on something, then you deserve all the crap we say at you, and you should be kicked out of the club. Did you think of the kids, ZipGunBop and jocosmic? Did you?

 

If the FFA/AFC/governing body did not fine the club or bring restrictions, would people still be morally outraged about flares? Of course not! So it's not flares you have an issue with (seeing as most people cheered when they were ripped), it's the FFA's punishment. Rather than go along with the fabricated moral outrage generated by FFA/AFC and mainstream media, why not say "Hey, hold up a second. Does all this warrant this punishment?". 

 

I'm not sure which game you were at but all I heard were jeers of disbelief and frustration.

 

Yep...you're dreaming if you think that "most people ' cheered.. Around me ..Eastern stand, sure, initially probably a hundred people cheered - out of how ever many thousand were sitting there.   The vast majority did not.

 

If you can't tell the difference between most people (ie as the goal was scored) and those who cheered the flares, you may need to get your hearing checked.   

[matty]

We complain about the media being sensationalist yet we can be just as bad.

[LesBear]

OKAY, 

Regardless of the accusations & discussions that permeate this thread, Sunday's dynamics have changed somewhat due to the bans. 

We need to work around them and use our energies to aim to make the game day experience just as good as always.

[wendybr]

 

 

 

I remember Harry Kewell saying publicly how much he liked flares and smokeys not so long ago.

This is not helping your argument.

I'm not having an argument.

I'm watching everyone else argue and nit-pick over stuff no one here can control.

That's not an argument, it's just contradiction

 

 

 

Does this remind you of anything?

 

[rodz7]

 

 

If the FFA/AFC/governing body did not fine the club or bring restrictions, would people still be morally outraged about flares? Of course not! So it's not flares you have an issue with (seeing as most people cheered when they were ripped), it's the FFA's punishment. Rather than go along with the fabricated moral outrage generated by FFA/AFC and mainstream media, why not say "Hey, hold up a second. Does all this warrant this punishment?". 

 

 

The biggest problem you have is that flares are illegal in this country to be used that way. You need to get rid of these laws first before you can argue this point of view. The FFA and AFC are only enforcing these laws so you can't really blame them for this situation.

 

If flares didn't pose a health risk, couldn't endanger the safety of people around them in a confined space and a couple of other things I'm sure you'd find that they would be legal and okay to use. Listen to arguments on the previous page, this is why they are banned because of the reaction to people with asthma and the fact they are burning at a high temperature causing burns to people.

 

I don't have an issue with you being devils advocate but until this simple fact is changed, the FFA restrictions, the AFC fines and the mainstream media will continue coming down hard on this so called "anti-social behaviour".

 

PS. At the back of bay 24 people cheered when they went off but their views changed once the smoke played a part in the goal then it went to jeers! Just my two cents.

 

 

If this was a health risk issue, we'd be banning the promotion and selling of alcohol at venues which cause infinitely more deaths in this country than flares. 

 

If this was a health risk issue, we'd be banning the sale of chips, hot dogs, etc at venues which are often associated with heart disease and one of the biggest killers in this country. 

 

If this was a health risk issue, we'd ban sports betting/gambling which is a major cause of suicide.

 

If this was a health risk issue, the FFA would've opened negotiations to how to safely operate flares with trained professionals rather than clumsily dropping them to the ground.

 

Lighting fireworks for new year is also illegal, but it doesn't generate the moral outrage or rigorous investigation that lighting a flare seems to have. 

 

And no, with the way laws are being determined in the Western world, we are heading into a more authoritarian state. The issue with flares, just like smoking, isn't about creating a "safe environment"; it's about creating a product that generates the most money. Umbrellas are legal, yet FFA establishes their own law banning them. Confetti is used in the FFA "Power the game" video, yet it is banned because it costs money.

[Guest ZipGunBop]

 

 

 

 

I love the flares. I'm sorry... I just do. I hate the stupid over reactions and irrelevant punishments handed out by the FFA.

 

 

I would be more than happy to take you out in a boat and strand you on a raft well off shore with a bucket full of the bastards, then you can rip away to your hearts content. No one might see you in time of course, but at least you will have gone out how you would have wanted and we will be one flare fanatic less, win win situation.

You'd be more than happy to be an accomplice in ones death and take pride in it, yet you sit on your ******* moral high ground about flares. Nice one.

Look I've never ripped a flare nor do I sit in the rbb. I just love the look of them within a football context (rendering your boat solution irrelevant).

I would never light one because I don't want the club to suffer but some decisions just really piss me off. As one has mentioned already, I don't like the fact that some people aren't allowed to have an opinion without people like you making personal attacks.

I'll admit, I don't know much when it comes to flares. I just think they add extra atmosphere that's all. I'm not a fanatic.

Is there anyway it could be used safely and regulated? It just seems that people are going to use them and if they are going to do it discreetly, clumsily and without warning then that would be more dangerous. But then again, like I said I know nothing about them so not sure if regulated use is even an option.

And keep to the issue instead of gratuitous personal attacks. That way we can engage in a constructive discussion rather than forum fascism.

No Jocosmic.

You are not allowed to admit you like them.

Even if you haven't ripped one and never plan on ripping one.

The Thought Police will hunt you down.

 

Zip,  people can admit to liking them all they choose.  Just as long as they stop doing it. It has been easy to get steamed up towards anyone in the "I like flares" camp, even if they've never seen one up close. I've make assumptions over the past two days which i shouldn't have done. 

 

Jocosmic's point here is valid... and maybe Boro should have added a   to his comment.  But all sorts of people have come on here in the anti-flares camp absolutely pushed over their limit  to restrain themselves due to their long standing frustrations.

Wendy,

 

You can say "people just have to stop doing it" as much as you want. But there is no way of stopping someone if they so choose.

 

And blaming the North end pointing fingers at the whole group is mis-directed and pointless.

 

Perhaps you haven't specifically, but what I see here is alot of angry people that expect ordinary people in the RBB to be held responsible for the actions of strangers and more so, want ordinary people in the stands to police their own bay in some kind of pseudo moral police way. When in reality not everyone agrees that it is even a problem to begin with.

[wendybr]

 

 

 

 

I love the flares. I'm sorry... I just do. I hate the stupid over reactions and irrelevant punishments handed out by the FFA.

 

I would be more than happy to take you out in a boat and strand you on a raft well off shore with a bucket full of the bastards, then you can rip away to your hearts content. No one might see you in time of course, but at least you will have gone out how you would have wanted and we will be one flare fanatic less, win win situation.

You'd be more than happy to be an accomplice in ones death and take pride in it, yet you sit on your ******* moral high ground about flares. Nice one.

Look I've never ripped a flare nor do I sit in the rbb. I just love the look of them within a football context (rendering your boat solution irrelevant).

I would never light one because I don't want the club to suffer but some decisions just really piss me off. As one has mentioned already, I don't like the fact that some people aren't allowed to have an opinion without people like you making personal attacks.

I'll admit, I don't know much when it comes to flares. I just think they add extra atmosphere that's all. I'm not a fanatic.

Is there anyway it could be used safely and regulated? It just seems that people are going to use them and if they are going to do it discreetly, clumsily and without warning then that would be more dangerous. But then again, like I said I know nothing about them so not sure if regulated use is even an option.

And keep to the issue instead of gratuitous personal attacks. That way we can engage in a constructive discussion rather than forum fascism.

No Jocosmic.

 

You are not allowed to admit you like them.

 

Even if you haven't ripped one and never plan on ripping one.

 

The Thought Police will hunt you down.

 

 

It's quite funny how everyone claims to be "open and welcoming to the Wanderers family", but if you dare have a different opinion on something, then you deserve all the crap we say at you, and you should be kicked out of the club. Did you think of the kids, ZipGunBop and jocosmic? Did you?

 

If the FFA/AFC/governing body did not fine the club or bring restrictions, would people still be morally outraged about flares? Of course not! So it's not flares you have an issue with (seeing as most people cheered when they were ripped), it's the FFA's punishment. Rather than go along with the fabricated moral outrage generated by FFA/AFC and mainstream media, why not say "Hey, hold up a second. Does all this warrant this punishment?". 

 

 

Maybe you haven't been on the forums long enough to know that this has arisen many times over...with the same resultant in-fighting amongst the supporters .

 

Thread after thread has taken off...all locked because of the inability of people to debate without ripping into each other.

 

For many, these the sanctions came on top of .... the goal which changed the game's momentum,.... which came on top of the threat of point deductions, ....which came on top of losing privileges, ....which came on top of media condemnation, ....which came on top of excessive police/Hatamoto scrutiny, ....which came on top of stories of people having asthma attacks.  Does this not explain why people are actually genuinely FED UP rather than fabricating moral outrage??

[dcol]

 

 

 

If the FFA/AFC/governing body did not fine the club or bring restrictions, would people still be morally outraged about flares? Of course not! So it's not flares you have an issue with (seeing as most people cheered when they were ripped), it's the FFA's punishment. Rather than go along with the fabricated moral outrage generated by FFA/AFC and mainstream media, why not say "Hey, hold up a second. Does all this warrant this punishment?". 

 

 

The biggest problem you have is that flares are illegal in this country to be used that way. You need to get rid of these laws first before you can argue this point of view. The FFA and AFC are only enforcing these laws so you can't really blame them for this situation.

 

If flares didn't pose a health risk, couldn't endanger the safety of people around them in a confined space and a couple of other things I'm sure you'd find that they would be legal and okay to use. Listen to arguments on the previous page, this is why they are banned because of the reaction to people with asthma and the fact they are burning at a high temperature causing burns to people.

 

I don't have an issue with you being devils advocate but until this simple fact is changed, the FFA restrictions, the AFC fines and the mainstream media will continue coming down hard on this so called "anti-social behaviour".

 

PS. At the back of bay 24 people cheered when they went off but their views changed once the smoke played a part in the goal then it went to jeers! Just my two cents.

 

 

If this was a health risk issue, we'd be banning the promotion and selling of alcohol at venues which cause infinitely more deaths in this country than flares. 

 

If this was a health risk issue, we'd be banning the sale of chips, hot dogs, etc at venues which are often associated with heart disease and one of the biggest killers in this country. 

 

If this was a health risk issue, we'd ban sports betting/gambling which is a major cause of suicide.

 

If this was a health risk issue, the FFA would've opened negotiations to how to safely operate flares with trained professionals rather than clumsily dropping them to the ground.

 

Lighting fireworks for new year is also illegal, but it doesn't generate the moral outrage or rigorous investigation that lighting a flare seems to have. 

 

And no, with the way laws are being determined in the Western world, we are heading into a more authoritarian state. The issue with flares, just like smoking, isn't about creating a "safe environment"; it's about creating a product that generates the most money. Umbrellas are legal, yet FFA establishes their own law banning them. Confetti is used in the FFA "Power the game" video, yet it is banned because it costs money.

 

All of these health risks you highlight; the risks are specific to the individual. Eating a hot dog doesn't clog the arteries of the people around you.

[rodz7]

 

 

 

 

It's quite funny how everyone claims to be "open and welcoming to the Wanderers family", but if you dare have a different opinion on something, then you deserve all the crap we say at you, and you should be kicked out of the club. Did you think of the kids, ZipGunBop and jocosmic? Did you?

 

If the FFA/AFC/governing body did not fine the club or bring restrictions, would people still be morally outraged about flares? Of course not! So it's not flares you have an issue with (seeing as most people cheered when they were ripped), it's the FFA's punishment. Rather than go along with the fabricated moral outrage generated by FFA/AFC and mainstream media, why not say "Hey, hold up a second. Does all this warrant this punishment?". 

 

I'm not sure which game you were at but all I heard were jeers of disbelief and frustration.

 

Yep...you're dreaming if you think that "most people ' cheered.. Around me ..Eastern stand, sure, initially probably a hundred people cheered - out of how ever many thousand were sitting there.   The vast majority did not.

 

If you can't tell the difference between most people (ie as the goal was scored) and those who cheered the flares, you may need to get your hearing checked.   

 

 

I've re-watched from the 31st minute to the 33rd minute and I can see people clapping and there is audible cheering from a considerable percentage of the crowd when the pyro was ripped. The goal happened a minute after the pyro was first lit as security ran around with the flares trying to extinguish them. The goal subdued much of the crowd afterwards, but initially, it's clear as day. 

 

You cannot hear a single boo or groan of disappointment. 

 

You guys always amaze how no matter the situation, no matter how hypocritical, no matter your overreaction, you are always taking the moral high ground

 

For anyone actually curious for the truth. The cheering starts at 32:25 of the match. This is why I record every single match, because people like to lie to suit their warped version of reality

[rodz7]

 

All of these health risks you highlight; the risks are specific to the individual. Eating a hot dog doesn't clog the arteries of the people around you.

 

 

But the general pubic foots the bill for health related expenses.

[dcol]

 

All of these health risks you highlight; the risks are specific to the individual. Eating a hot dog doesn't clog the arteries of the people around you.

 

 

But the general pubic foots the bill for health related expenses.

 

Right, but that's got very little to do with the argument that flares are/could be/can be a health hazard.

[Torcidas]

 

All of these health risks you highlight; the risks are specific to the individual. Eating a hot dog doesn't clog the arteries of the people around you.

 

 

But the general pubic foots the bill for health related expenses.

 

Stop pussyfooting around it then... Come out and say you want the flares and that you are not prepeared to do anything to help the situation.

 

It'll just make it easier for the real fans to lobby the club to have the whole lot of you loudmouth RBB wankers excluded!

[rodz7]

 

 

Maybe you haven't been on the forums long enough to know that this has arisen many times over...with the same resultant in-fighting amongst the supporters .

 

Thread after thread has taken off...all locked because of the inability of people to debate without ripping into each other.

 

For many, these the sanctions came on top of .... the goal which changed the game's momentum,.... which came on top of the threat of point deductions, ....which came on top of losing privileges, ....which came on top of media condemnation, ....which came on top of excessive police/Hatamoto scrutiny, ....which came on top of stories of people having asthma attacks.  Does this not explain why people are actually genuinely FED UP rather than fabricating moral outrage??

 

 

I've lurked for over year on another account, so thanks for the concern.

 

So how come you don't say a word when the people sharing your opinion resort to personal attacks? Wendy, I think you're being a hypocrite here. You're keen to play "mother hen" and discipline me for personal attacks, yet you never call out those on your side. 

 

The goal was because of Polenz' misguided header and NTS' inability to clear the ball. The Korean player somehow managed to slot it perfectly in the corner, so without a doubt, blaming the flare for the goal is completely misguided. 

 

I hope you're not too fed up and deflect to Roar who are coming 1st

[hawks2767]

No, what did he say?

 

---

 

Also on the flares that were ripped on Wednesday night - I was sitting close to the Ulsan away support, and I could smell the smoke. It's not a nice smell. Thank God I'm not asthmatic or have lung problems because I saw a few people covering up and/or walking down the stairs, ostensibly to not have to take in the stuff.

The smoke is non toxic.

 

Part of my job involves looking after flares, these ones are about 5 times bigger than the flares people rip but it's all the same - non toxic but displaces oxygen so you don't want that to be the only thing you are breathing.

 

Which is fine in an open air environment, somewhere like a train carriage wouldn't be too nice,

[AEK]

so, anyone know who the 3 sub groups are? and why the 3 specific subgroups have been targeted?

[rodz7]

 

 

All of these health risks you highlight; the risks are specific to the individual. Eating a hot dog doesn't clog the arteries of the people around you.

 

 

But the general pubic foots the bill for health related expenses.

 

Stop pussyfooting around it then... Come out and say you want the flares and that you are not prepeared to do anything to help the situation.

 

It'll just make it easier for the real fans to lobby the club to have the whole lot of you loudmouth RBB wankers excluded!

 

 

Easy there, sexy Petar

 

You want me kicked out of the club for a thought crime? Care to elaborate on what other thought crimes should be punished in society? We need more statists such as yourself. 

 

Why not be a big boy and tell the capos and everyone else in person on Sunday? 

[Guest mickisnot]

The topic of, and even the word "flare", I feel, has just been blown out of proportion and for the most part is fuelled by emotion.

 

I once had faith that the arguments on this website were solely isolated to people ripping flares. But when we went through all those home games without flares, and gave media institutions nothing to play with, there were some cracks that were being exposed. The Daily Telegraph released some exclusive (massive toss) about violent sub-groups and people wearing scarves around their face. I was outraged, people can wrap a scarf around their face if they damn well please! At first I thought people on this website were going to say "What an absolute toss of an article" However, there were a lot of posts starting to emerge like:

 

"Omg the violence! I Can't believe the sub groups etc." and "What is it with this bs about people wearing scarves around their face etc."
 

I'd like to say here and now, that I don't condone ripping flares, rules are rules. But try and take a step back and think What's really going on here?

[Skoolz6]

Sat in the eastern grandstand near the rbb and not one person complained... In actual fact the cheer was a loud one and before you knew it every one was on their phones taking photos

 

Didn't hear one complaint regarding the pyro show, no one got up and left, no one ran to security and no one called Ray Hadley ..... If anything the majority thought it was brilliant

Edited March 1, 2014 by Skoolz6

[rodz7]

 

 

Right, but that's got very little to do with the argument that flares are/could be/can be a health hazard.

 

 

If flares are health hazard, we should consider every potential health hazard at the venue. If you claim that fast food is okay because it only affects the person eating, then you're in favour of the flares being lit as long as they in bay 54 and away from everyone? 

 

I thought the outrage was that the rest of the fans and club had to foot the bill?  If we're against sharing the bill, then we're against sharing the bill for other "health risks". 

[lloydy136]

 

 

 

Two incidents....

A - a fan racially abuses a player.

B - a fan rips a flare.

In both cases the clubs are repeat offenders. Both acts are illegal and generally frowned on by the broader community (if not by some within the respective fanbases).

Act A was punished with an ejection.

Act B was punished (or will be) with a police investigation, likely charges, bans and loss of privileges for the broader fanbase.

What's the difference? Media crisis creation. A barely registered in the media and was treated as the inappropriate behaviour of a few whereas B is part of a broader attack on football fans. The media is seeking to strip away the uniqueness of football support by creating a crisis and compelling various authorities to act and limit football support. Its flares now but how long before the media get all in a lather about broken seats and create a crisis that results in seccos being instructed to make people sit down during the game as happens in the uk?

We are doing our part too here by squabbling and name calling as if we had all magically moved 30km east. Disappointing.

This is not me endorsing or condemning the use of flares but it is my opinion that there are bigger forces at play here than 'just a few selfish idiots'.

Anyone who thinks that if we never ripped another flare that the media attacks and restrictions on wsw fans would stop is not living in the real world imo.

 

Sorry Lloydy...I don't buy that. Both are socially unacceptable, dangerous and harmful to others. Read WDWSF's post. This is what it's about.

I read that as Lloydy saying that they're both wrong but they get punished differently because of influences outside the club and the game itself.

 

Sorry Lloydy. I haven't watched the News or read a newspaper, but I'm not aware that this has been picked up massively by the media...maybe it has.  Therefore, I'm not aware that the powers-that-be are being driven to sanctions as a result of any intense media pressure.

 

I don't feel discriminated against in any way ( as a WSW supporter)  as a result of any of this recent drama.  I just feel embarrassed.

 

As Prydz said last night, our club (well a few individuals within our club) have 'ripped a trail" of flares since the pre-season last year.

 

Sure, there have been not at Pirtek stadium since the early games of this season.  To me that's irrelevant,  because at away games, they've appeared, in the streets of Gosford and in Federation Square last year,  flares have been ripped. (which is where along with a few hundred mystified tourists/visitors/diners etc I copped a lungful.)

 

I'm not buying into any "this is anti-"soccer"' talk.  That's what I meant by my reply.

 

Racial vilification disgusts me. Throw the book at anyone caught doing it.

 

Flares being let off in the middle of thousands of people, causing burns to people (even if they want to wear it with pride)  and inducing asthma attacks in 4 year old children disgust me See numerous of Who DoWeSingFor's  posts).

 

And people who can't see anything wrong with the latter- leave me (almost) speechless.

 

Hope this makes sense...hope it answers your question.

I think we are arguing different things wendy. Your argument is that flares are wrong, dangerous and illegal and have no place at our club. ( correct me if I am wrong). Which I don't necessarily disagree with btw.

 

My argument is that what we have seen is an over reaction to an incident that already has measures in place to deal with it ( afc fines, police action etc). Why the need for additional restrictions On top of what is already in place (away ticketing restrictions etc). The answer to me is the long term negative media coverage of football in this country which has intensified since wsw's inception and created a context where authorities feel they must 'act tough' and increase sancTions and restrictions. Everything that we deal with in my opinion must be viewed in the context of a concentrated

media all of which have huge financial interests in our rivals.

 

I raised the racism issue as comparison because I would argue that if collingwood and hawthorn were European football clubs they would have had tO play games behind closed doors by now as their fans are repeat offenders for racial vilification. Instead no action (to my knowledge) has been taken against the club, the individuals or the broader fanbase by either the afl or the police.

 

The difference between the two situations imo is not the relative morality of the actions but the different media contexts.

[marron]

so, anyone know who the 3 sub groups are? and why the 3 specific subgroups have been targeted?

if you read the email it makes it fairly clear why they've been targeted - the flares were ripped in their areas.

I guess just look for the missing banners on sunday...

 

 

 

 

Two incidents....

A - a fan racially abuses a player.

B - a fan rips a flare.

In both cases the clubs are repeat offenders. Both acts are illegal and generally frowned on by the broader community (if not by some within the respective fanbases).

Act A was punished with an ejection.

Act B was punished (or will be) with a police investigation, likely charges, bans and loss of privileges for the broader fanbase.

What's the difference? Media crisis creation. A barely registered in the media and was treated as the inappropriate behaviour of a few whereas B is part of a broader attack on football fans. The media is seeking to strip away the uniqueness of football support by creating a crisis and compelling various authorities to act and limit football support. Its flares now but how long before the media get all in a lather about broken seats and create a crisis that results in seccos being instructed to make people sit down during the game as happens in the uk?

We are doing our part too here by squabbling and name calling as if we had all magically moved 30km east. Disappointing.

This is not me endorsing or condemning the use of flares but it is my opinion that there are bigger forces at play here than 'just a few selfish idiots'.

Anyone who thinks that if we never ripped another flare that the media attacks and restrictions on wsw fans would stop is not living in the real world imo.

Sorry Lloydy...I don't buy that. Both are socially unacceptable, dangerous and harmful to others. Read WDWSF's post. This is what it's about.

 

I read that as Lloydy saying that they're both wrong but they get punished differently because of influences outside the club and the game itself.

 

 

Sorry Lloydy. I haven't watched the News or read a newspaper, but I'm not aware that this has been picked up massively by the media...maybe it has.  Therefore, I'm not aware that the powers-that-be are being driven to sanctions as a result of any intense media pressure.

 

I don't feel discriminated against in any way ( as a WSW supporter)  as a result of any of this recent drama.  I just feel embarrassed.

 

As Prydz said last night, our club (well a few individuals within our club) have 'ripped a trail" of flares since the pre-season last year.

 

Sure, there have been not at Pirtek stadium since the early games of this season.  To me that's irrelevant,  because at away games, they've appeared, in the streets of Gosford and in Federation Square last year,  flares have been ripped. (which is where along with a few hundred mystified tourists/visitors/diners etc I copped a lungful.)

 

I'm not buying into any "this is anti-"soccer"' talk.  That's what I meant by my reply.

 

Racial vilification disgusts me. Throw the book at anyone caught doing it.

 

Flares being let off in the middle of thousands of people, causing burns to people (even if they want to wear it with pride)  and inducing asthma attacks in 4 year old children disgust me See numerous of Who DoWeSingFor's  posts).

 

And people who can't see anything wrong with the latter- leave me (almost) speechless.

 

Hope this makes sense...hope it answers your question.

 

I think we are arguing different things wendy. Your argument is that flares are wrong, dangerous and illegal and have no place at our club. ( correct me if I am wrong). Which I don't necessarily disagree with btw.

 

My argument is that what we have seen is an over reaction to an incident that already has measures in place to deal with it ( afc fines, police action etc). Why the need for additional restrictions On top of what is already in place (away ticketing restrictions etc). The answer to me is the long term negative media coverage of football in this country which has intensified since wsw's inception and created a context where authorities feel they must 'act tough' and increase sancTions and restrictions. Everything that we deal with in my opinion must be viewed in the context of a concentrated

media all of which have huge financial interests in our rivals.

 

I raised the racism issue as comparison because I would argue that if collingwood and hawthorn were European football clubs they would have had tO play games behind closed doors by now as their fans are repeat offenders for racial vilification. Instead no action (to my knowledge) has been taken against the club, the individuals or the broader fanbase by either the afl or the police.

 

The difference between the two situations imo is not the relative morality of the actions but the different media contexts.

 

A great example of how there is a hell of a lot of grey area which seems to be missed in a lot of this discussion (from both sides).

 

Have a read of the article I posted in the media thread... interesting reading on similar issues in Britain.

[GD07]

I didn't realise our fan base was so full of hypocrites.

[dcol]

 

 

Right, but that's got very little to do with the argument that flares are/could be/can be a health hazard.

 

 

If flares are health hazard, we should consider every potential health hazard at the venue. If you claim that fast food is okay because it only affects the person eating, then you're in favour of the flares being lit as long as they in bay 54 and away from everyone? 

 

I thought the outrage was that the rest of the fans and club had to foot the bill?  If we're against sharing the bill, then we're against sharing the bill for other "health risks". 

 

That's a long bow you've drawn.

 

"We're" against 'sharing the bill' for behaviour which has never been okay. It's not possible that before Wednesday there was any confusion on this matter. Flares = Banned. Verboten.

 

And the person in Bay 54 would need to be in a wind tunnel.

[AEK]

I know why we are being targetted, i knew it on the day as soon as the first one was lit, i was waiting for this, Iwas in bay 23 right at the back on Wednesday and it looked like the flares came from Bay56 from my end

my point is, if they are targetting those 3 sub groups then it looks like they saw them do it, i doubt they would put a blame on a those 3 subgroups if they didnt do anything, but then again, we are owned by FFA...

 

we stand behind the the fence the banners are on, we wont really know till we watch replay or see them take them down, many times i have seen the northgate banner be put on the fence literally 10 minutes before the game starts, i see the guy come in, take the banner out of his jacket and tie it to the fence, so looks like the guards will be informed and will wait for this to happen before they pounce on him and take the banner away i assume...

[Unlimited]

For everyone going "Well, we didn't hear any boos" well maybe because for people like me who don't want to see the flares - I just shook my head. I didn't say anything. Not a sound.

 

I'm guessing many would be like that too.

 

 

And why the camera phones? Who knows, for sheer novelty value or something. Doesn't mean they condone it.

[Smoggy]

 

 

 

 

I love the flares. I'm sorry... I just do. I hate the stupid over reactions and irrelevant punishments handed out by the FFA.

 

I would be more than happy to take you out in a boat and strand you on a raft well off shore with a bucket full of the bastards, then you can rip away to your hearts content. No one might see you in time of course, but at least you will have gone out how you would have wanted and we will be one flare fanatic less, win win situation.

You'd be more than happy to be an accomplice in ones death and take pride in it, yet you sit on your ******* moral high ground about flares. Nice one.

Look I've never ripped a flare nor do I sit in the rbb. I just love the look of them within a football context (rendering your boat solution irrelevant).

I would never light one because I don't want the club to suffer but some decisions just really piss me off. As one has mentioned already, I don't like the fact that some people aren't allowed to have an opinion without people like you making personal attacks.

I'll admit, I don't know much when it comes to flares. I just think they add extra atmosphere that's all. I'm not a fanatic.

Is there anyway it could be used safely and regulated? It just seems that people are going to use them and if they are going to do it discreetly, clumsily and without warning then that would be more dangerous. But then again, like I said I know nothing about them so not sure if regulated use is even an option.

And keep to the issue instead of gratuitous personal attacks. That way we can engage in a constructive discussion rather than forum fascism.

No Jocosmic.

 

You are not allowed to admit you like them.

 

Even if you haven't ripped one and never plan on ripping one.

 

The Thought Police will hunt you down.

 

 

Zip,  people can admit to liking them all they choose.  Just as long as they stop doing it. It has been easy to get steamed up towards anyone in the "I like flares" camp, even if they've never seen one up close. I've make assumptions over the past two days which i shouldn't have done. 

 

Jocosmic's point here is valid... and maybe Boro should have added a   to his comment.  But all sorts of people have come on here in the anti-flares camp absolutely pushed over their limit  to restrain themselves due to their long standing frustrations.

 

Yes, I agree a   and even a   would have been appropriate as the comment was made tongue firmly in cheek. Apologies to Jocosmic for that one.

 

I think mack should step in soon  and rap this one up, it is going around in circles again and it gets to the point where by it does no further good..

Edited March 1, 2014 by WSWBoro

[WhoDoWeSingFor]

 

 

All of these health risks you highlight; the risks are specific to the individual. Eating a hot dog doesn't clog the arteries of the people around you.

 

 

But the general pubic foots the bill for health related expenses.

 

Stop pussyfooting around it then... Come out and say you want the flares and that you are not prepeared to do anything to help the situation.

 

It'll just make it easier for the real fans to lobby the club to have the whole lot of you loudmouth RBB wankers excluded!

 

 

Despite my views about the flares used at Wanderland and the inability of many people to discuss them in here, I have to say that many in the RBB do not like the flares. This is not something that all the guys in the RBB feel the same way about. I know this for a fact. Many people who have commented on this issue from a (for lack of better term) anti-pyro perspective are in the RBB. I myself will be in the RBB on Sunday (don't normally) and I will sing shoulder to shoulder.

[Unlimited]

I don't think this has been posted yet here:

 

"I think it's time to publish a statement:
 

"1. Pyro is only acceptable if it's safe and no harm can occur to anyone. Attending Football games must be safe, enjoyable and fearless." - Jerome Polenz

[koji]

For everyone going "Well, we didn't hear any boos" well maybe because for people like me who don't want to see the flares - I just shook my head. I didn't say anything. Not a sound.

 

I'm guessing many would be like that too.

 

 

And why the camera phones? Who knows, for sheer novelty value or something. Doesn't mean they condone it.

 

I agree - if there is a big brawl in the stands some people will cheer and get out their phones, but most will just shake their head in disdain imagining the headlines in the paper the next day. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the next flare ripped causes a wave of boos though given how much it has hurt the club. They've become a symbol of selfish idiots putting their own glory ahead of WSW moreso than an actual spectacle. 

Edited March 1, 2014 by koji

[wendybr]

 

 

Maybe you haven't been on the forums long enough to know that this has arisen many times over...with the same resultant in-fighting amongst the supporters .

 

Thread after thread has taken off...all locked because of the inability of people to debate without ripping into each other.

 

For many, these the sanctions came on top of .... the goal which changed the game's momentum,.... which came on top of the threat of point deductions, ....which came on top of losing privileges, ....which came on top of media condemnation, ....which came on top of excessive police/Hatamoto scrutiny, ....which came on top of stories of people having asthma attacks.  Does this not explain why people are actually genuinely FED UP rather than fabricating moral outrage??

 

 

I've lurked for over year on another account, so thanks for the concern.

 

So how come you don't say a word when the people sharing your opinion resort to personal attacks? Wendy, I think you're being a hypocrite here. You're keen to play "mother hen" and discipline me for personal attacks, yet you never call out those on your side. 

 

I hope you're not too fed up and deflect to Roar who are coming 1st

 

To answer your question, Rodz - I would try to resist the "Like" button where anyone is targeted with a personal attack, even if I totally agree with the criticism. But I would never call them out - that would be targeting them for a personal criticism. 

 

I haven't meant to "discipline " you...I've just been trying to present arguments against the points you have presented.   However,  I agree that my comments regarding your hearing, and suggesting that you haven't been around long enough etc etc are definitely getting personal.

 

 I apologise - I don't think I've ever done that before other than in a very obviously non-serious way.

 

PS  "mother hen" gets added to "Pollyanna" gets added to "a disgrace to the terraces". Ah well...