Standing at home games.

[LoyalRoyalFan]

Has an incident ever happened with people standing in front of seats? if not then why can't it simply be a standing section in an all seater ground. You could still buy a 'seat' but just be warned that 'supporters may wish to stand in this section of the ground'. Use red seats or what ever.

Exactly.

[Sun Tzu]

Why is it that I've stood at all seater grounds - some more rowdy than others, for instance last season at Ashton Gate we had cause to celebrate and I'm quite sure no one died in doing so - and the (fantastic) stewards there didn't bat an eyelid?

.

There had been hundreds of games at Valley Parade in a wooden stand with rubbish under it before one day it burned down. It hadn't been safe for all those years, the inevitable just hadn;t happened yet.

Likewise Hillsboro had staged many big games, as had similar grounds,without the scale of carnage that happened at the semi. But there had been lots of instances of crushes and near disasters (most games at the old pre seater Wembley were horrific).

At Ashton Gate last season you may have though there were no problems but when Cisse scored there was a charge from the back, several people found their legs swept from under then by the row of seats in front of the gangway, they shot forward knocking others over and two people next to me cracked their heads on the seats as they were unexpectedly smashed from behind. It coul dhave been worse, a rowdier crowd, a bit more pushing, a few more peopleslipping and getting buried under a pile of bodies. It didn;t happen, but a surge of people across an open space then hitting a low level barrier such as seats could lead to a real tragedy.

I miss the terraces. it's sad my kids never experienced the Southbank and I agree there ought to be a way of allowing people to stand in safety. Standing in a seated area is an accident waiting to happen and it is just being blinkered to say that becasue there hasn;t been a problem there can;t be one.

[Dirk Gently]

Why is it that I've stood at all seater grounds - some more rowdy than others, for instance last season at Ashton Gate we had cause to celebrate and I'm quite sure no one died in doing so - and the (fantastic) stewards there didn't bat an eyelid?
There had been hundreds of games at Valley Parade in a wooden stand with rubbish under it before one day it burned down. It hadn't been safe for all those years, the inevitable just hadn;t happened yet.

Likewise Hillsboro had staged many big games, as had similar grounds,without the scale of carnage that happened at the semi. But there had been lots of instances of crushes and near disasters (most games at the old pre seater Wembley were horrific).

.

At Ashton Gate last season you may have though there were no problems but when Cisse scored there was a charge from the back, several people found their legs swept from under then by the row of seats in front of the gangway, they shot forward knocking others over and two people next to me cracked their heads on the seats as they were unexpectedly smashed from behind. It coul dhave been worse, a rowdier crowd, a bit more pushing, a few more peopleslipping and getting buried under a pile of bodies. It didn;t happen, but a surge of people across an open space then hitting a low level barrier such as seats could lead to a real tragedy.

I miss the terraces. it's sad my kids never experienced the Southbank and I agree there ought to be a way of allowing people to stand in safety. Standing in a seated area is an accident waiting to happen and it is just being blinkered to say that becasue there hasn;t been a problem there can;t be one.

All of which just further supports the need for properly design safe-standing areas.

[Sun Tzu]

All of which just further supports the need for properly design safe-standing areas.

It supports the need for any place where people watch from to be safe. Ashton Gate is an accident waiting to happen as well as being a rubbish place to watch from (although a good atmosphere). Bolting seats on terraces is unsatisfactory for any number of reasons and it's insulting to fans to charge large sums of money for the use of uncomfortable seats with hopeless views and the chance of being hurt whilst sitting in them.

[Russell Street]

Why is it that I've stood at all seater grounds - some more rowdy than others, for instance last season at Ashton Gate we had cause to celebrate and I'm quite sure no one died in doing so - and the (fantastic) stewards there didn't bat an eyelid?

.

There had been hundreds of games at Valley Parade in a wooden stand with rubbish under it before one day it burned down. It hadn't been safe for all those years, the inevitable just hadn;t happened yet.

Likewise Hillsboro had staged many big games, as had similar grounds,without the scale of carnage that happened at the semi. But there had been lots of instances of crushes and near disasters (most games at the old pre seater Wembley were horrific).

At Ashton Gate last season you may have though there were no problems but when Cisse scored there was a charge from the back, several people found their legs swept from under then by the row of seats in front of the gangway, they shot forward knocking others over and two people next to me cracked their heads on the seats as they were unexpectedly smashed from behind. It coul dhave been worse, a rowdier crowd, a bit more pushing, a few more peopleslipping and getting buried under a pile of bodies. It didn;t happen, but a surge of people across an open space then hitting a low level barrier such as seats could lead to a real tragedy.

I miss the terraces. it's sad my kids never experienced the Southbank and I agree there ought to be a way of allowing people to stand in safety. Standing in a seated area is an accident waiting to happen and it is just being blinkered to say that becasue there hasn;t been a problem there can;t be one.

All of which just further supports the need for properly design safe-standing areas.

It supports the need for any place where people watch from to be safe. Ashton Gate is an accident waiting to happen as well as being a rubbish place to watch from (although a good atmosphere). Bolting seats on terraces is unsatisfactory for any number of reasons and it's insulting to fans to charge large sums of money for the use of uncomfortable seats with hopeless views and the chance of being hurt whilst sitting in them.

I'm not sure why you mention Valley Parade or Hillsborough in this context, as they were not caused by fans standing. I only mentioned Hillsborough to illustrate the point that all seater stadiums were not introduced because football fans were standing, but the regulations were brought in because of that incident.

And I can't see anywhere that I've said there won't be an incident while standing in a seated area.

The whole point of introducing safe standing 'areas' is so that people have the CHOICE to sit or stand in a safe place. I think we're agreed on that though.

[Sun Tzu]

You implied that because no one died at Ashton Gate and at other games where you had stood in seated areas then that suggested standing in seated areas was not dangerous.

I pointed out that just because something had not yet been dangerous it didn't mean it didn't have that potential.

I think my examples are just as relevant as yours, but neither was mentioned in the context of seating, it was a general point about what is dangerous or safe. 'Safe' standing areas would be dangerous, although the most dangerous part would be the fans who used them and I suspect any incidents would be caused by the sort of people who think throwing coins at opposition fans or creating surges is funny.

[Rex]

But if a limited amount of safe capacity was agreed then the stipulations of attaining a safety certificate could be reached. The problems associated with crushing or surging could be controlled though not eliminated. I think it is possible to reach a common ground with those who wish to stand and act responsibly without a ground having a safety certificate revoked or threatened.

[Russell Street]

You implied that because no one died at Ashton Gate and at other games where you had stood in seated areas then that suggested standing in seated areas was not dangerous.

I pointed out that just because something had not yet been dangerous it didn't mean it didn't have that potential.

I think my examples are just as relevant as yours, but neither was mentioned in the context of seating, it was a general point about what is dangerous or safe. 'Safe' standing areas would be dangerous, although the most dangerous part would be the fans who used them and I suspect any incidents would be caused by the sort of people who think throwing coins at opposition fans or creating surges is funny.

No I was saying that the stewards let us stand in the area and then went on to say there are too many double standards. If there were any implication, it was that there is inconsistency in stewards allowing us to stand.

And how are your examples relevant when the conversation on this thread is about standing at football matches rather than general safety?

'Safe' standing areas would be dangerous, although the most dangerous part would be the fans who used them and I suspect any incidents would be caused by the sort of people who think throwing coins at opposition fans or creating surges is funny.

Simply stating that 'Safe' standing areas would be dangerous is based on what? Fans are allowed in all areas of the ground, therefore there is a risk of danger anywhere. Or are you saying that the sort of fan that would throw coins are the sort who would use these areas?

Although you can never eliminate the risk of some idiots carrying out this behaviour, football grounds now have the ability to monitor crowds and can follow your every move. You could still identify who is in what area. You can't control the moronic actions of some whether they be standing or seated. If the type of supporter you are talking about is in an all seater, surely if they have that mentality then they will still be intent on carrying out those actions.

This is about letting football supporters, of whom the majority have the gumption to act responsibly, have a choice. I am not prepared to be treated like a 2nd class citizen compared to supporters of other sports in the same stadium because of the type of sport I happen to follow.

[Sun Tzu]

This is about letting football supporters, of whom the majority have the gumption to act responsibly, have a choice. I am not prepared to be treated like a 2nd class citizen compared to supporters of other sports in the same stadium because of the type of sport I happen to follow.

Let's be honest, over the years there have been countless cases where football fans (or rather people attending football matches, as there is no way I want to associate the majority of people with the actions of the mindless few) have behaved in such a way that they have made it easy for the authorities to introduce the various restrictions we have but fans of others don't.

Could you have football matches with no segregation (like at rugby and cricket ) ?

Could you let football fans have unlimited access to alcohol throughout a game (like at rugby and cricket) ?

We have at least partially contributed to the situation by our past behaviour. if they relaxed the rules and there was a major incident as a result then there woul dbe hell to pay for no real benefit.

I'm also not really sure how we are treated as 'second class' citizens just because there are a few restrictions. If rugby fans were given comfy seats and waitress service whilst we were herded together in caged pens then maybe, but the major differences between fans at the two sports some from the fans themselves, not the rules applied. I went to Twickenham last week and in a crucial match which went down to the wire fans mixed, drank, sang and talked and there was not a hint of trouble of any kind. Imagine Liverpool v Juventus in a Champions League game where qualification depended on the result - mix the fans together ? Count the bodies.....

[Terminal Boardom]

Haven't Fulham introduced at the Putney End a form of non-segregation? And didn't I read that there was another club (MK Dons possibly?) seriously considering likewise?

Why don't Reading give it a go? The Lower West or at least part of could be treated as such. Ensure that tickets are sold to families, ie two parents with children under the age of 11, and see how it goes.

EDIT:

Thinking bit more about it, segregation is far more of a problem. The whole idea of not being able to be near opposing supporters introduces a tribal mentality which panders to the oik element of the support. In the 1980s, Leeds Utd came to Elm Park. At the time, they had a horrific reputation for trouble and encountered hostility from the authoprities wherever they went. They came to Elm Park in 1987 and the manner by which thy were treated resulted with the club and supporters groups writing to Reading FC thanking us for the way they were treated and how pleasant it was not to be treated as animals.

If unsegregated areas were carefully managed, I thin it would work and then, maybe then, can the thought of football supoprters being treated in the same way as cricket and rugby union spectators can be contemplated. We just have to earn that trust.

[Dirk Gently]

A match between Doncaster and Forest this season had an unsegregated area and that worked beautifully (despite pundits saying it'd never work because of tensions from the miners' strike) - there are also due to be other unsegregated areas at matches this season - possibly one involving us.

Admittedly that's just some areas of the ground and not the whole crowd, but it's a great start in breaking down the mentality that says "football supporters are all hooligans so let's treat them like that" - a mentality that is clearly alive and well on this thread.

More enlightened and less prescriptive researchers are starting to believe that one of the reasons that football crowds can be so aggressive, abusive and tribal is precisely *because* they are so segregated. It's easy to behave like aggressive, offensive twats when you're behind a line of police and stewards, and it reinforces the feelings of some that the opposing team's supporters are "different". But it's a rare person who'd behave like an aggressive, offensive twats when not in their protected "tribe" - but in amongst the other people at the game, regardless of which team they support.

I agree that there's a long way to go, and some people will never respond to this, but it's really quite ludicrous that at so many matches you go to the local pub, have a drink with the opposing supporters, and then you're herded into different parts of the ground because of an assumption that because you have a football shirt or scarf on you want to kick the sh*t out of those same people you've just been drinking with.

[Rex]

Agree Dirk. Some of the most interesting chats are with the opposite teams supporters. I omitted the work opposing. I had a gem of a chat with a Liverpool supporter over his European exploits and history. Particularly about bringing the younger generation of supporter through. What is the perspective from a stewarding point of view? As we know there are both good and bad in all walks of life and job remits also cover this.

. <<<<<<held up as an example.

[Terminal Boardom]

Agree Dirk. Some of the most interesting chats are with the opposite teams supporters. I omitted the work opposing. I had a gem of a chat with a Liverpool supporter over his European exploits and history. Particularly about bringing the younger generation of supporter through. What is the perspective from a stewarding point of view? As we know there are both good and bad in all walks of life and job remits also cover this.

. <<<<<<held up as an example.

Are you trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

After the 3-0 win at Burnley in 2006, I spent the night with a friend in a small village between Blackburn and Burnley. His wife being a Burnley ST holder. That Saturday night I went on pub crawl of the three pubs in the village. There really is nothing better than having a chat on a Saturday night with other football fans about the game that has been watched. Especially when you have won

Was there any trouble? Of course not. Was there any banter about the north south divide? Of course there was. It CAN be done!

[Silver Fox]

If we ever get treated like humans is there any chance we'll be allowed a pint during the game? If only to cut down on the number of dangerous hot drinks currently in our stands

[Dirk Gently]

If we ever get treated like humans is there any chance we'll be allowed a pint during the game? If only to cut down on the number of dangerous hot drinks currently in our stands

That is seriously being looked at - apart from a minority, there is serious consideration and research into the fact that current regulations mean that supporters quickly neck down a couple of pints between 2.40 & 3 pm, and that things would be a lot better for everyone if they were allowed to drink over a longer period rather than in a last minute rush.

Only under discussion at the moment, and the obvious issue is what you do with the people who quickly neck down a couple of pints between 2.40 & 3 pm and then carry on drinking for the next 90 minutes. But the obvious answer is that you use existing legislation against such people, instead of special legislation aimed only at people who choose to attend football matches as a lesiure activity.

[Terminal Boardom]

If we ever get treated like humans is there any chance we'll be allowed a pint during the game? If only to cut down on the number of dangerous hot drinks currently in our stands

It's the lids removed from platic bottles that winds me up. I remember getting my two small boys (6 and 4 at the tme) drinks. They must have recognised that they were going to fill the empty bottles with piss, secure the top, then throw said bottles at those sat in the Lower West. Massive threat to safety there then

Why can't the club just trial something in say WSU or North stands?

[Magnus]

More enlightened and less prescriptive researchers are starting to believe that one of the reasons that football crowds can be so aggressive, abusive and tribal is precisely *because* they are so segregated. It's easy to behave like aggressive, offensive twats when you're behind a line of police and stewards, and it reinforces the feelings of some that the opposing team's supporters are "different". But it's a rare person who'd behave like an aggressive, offensive twats when not in their protected "tribe" - but in amongst the other people at the game, regardless of which team they support.

Completely agree with this.

"football supporters are all hooligans so let's treat them like that" - a mentality that is clearly alive and well on this thread.

Which also supports this argument, people give it the big I am on t'internet because they're hiding beyond a keyboard and monitor. Pathetic really.

[TheMaraudingDog]

If we ever get treated like humans is there any chance we'll be allowed a pint during the game? If only to cut down on the number of dangerous hot drinks currently in our stands

That is seriously being looked at - apart from a minority, there is serious consideration and research into the fact that current regulations mean that supporters quickly neck down a couple of pints between 2.40 & 3 pm, and that things would be a lot better for everyone if they were allowed to drink over a longer period rather than in a last minute rush.

Only under discussion at the moment, and the obvious issue is what you do with the people who quickly neck down a couple of pints between 2.40 & 3 pm and then carry on drinking for the next 90 minutes. But the obvious answer is that you use existing legislation against such people, instead of special legislation aimed only at people who choose to attend football matches as a lesiure activity.

There's a certain group of North Stand Royals then tend to drink from 3pm until 4:15 before heading off home. To be fair though come 8pm they can be seen throwing haymakers down Braod Street.

[Silver Fox]

Apart from the 2.40-3 window it doesn't help trying to race a pint at half time either, apart from anything if you could get one whenever you fancied the staff wouldn't have to pour everyone's at 3 and leave on the side for 45 minutes

[floyd__streete]

You've got to credit RFC for doing there bit in curbing binge drinking at football by serving up the most rancid, over-priced p*ss masquerading as beer. I would only drink that pre-poured puke if I was given the opportunity to drink it straight from Megan Fox's vulva, otherwise forget it.