1.Agreed

2. There is talk of the East Stand being all reserved seats for next season which would certainly help identify the troublemakers.

3. Of course they should be banned, whoever they support. Why shouldn't they?

If we're going by majority opinions, that makes Hull fans thugs. Agreed?

The majority of opinion is that every club in SL has its "thug" element.

And the winner of Knucklehead post of the tread is "Clearwing"

And the winner of Knucklehead post of the thread is "Clearwing"

Still, at least he knows how to only make one post at a time eh?

Reserved seating will do absolutely nothing to help identify them. Ask any police officer. CCTV, which is already in place does far far more.

Banning people should be reserved for serious offences, not the odd act of idiocy.

- Entering the field of play, getting hold of a player - ban.
- Scrapping, ejected.
- Moment of stupidity, missle throwing etc, ejected, serious warning.
- Persistent trouble making, ban.

Hitting me on my posting skills. That just hurts. Here let me sepll a word incorrectly for you as well.

Just a reminder that taking the high ground gives you further to fall...

Let's hope so

www.hullfc.com/hullfc/contents/? ... m=facebook To all you who say Hull are doing nothing, at least its a start.

www.hullfc.com/hullfc/contents/? ... m=facebook To all you who say Hull are doing nothing, at least its a start.

And it's to be applauded but will it go far enough?
And i suppose 8yrs late is better than nothing.

I take it you mean about chav corner and not the alchol? They only introduced being able to drink in the seats this season. Personally I think if you can't go 40 mins without a beer (asuming you have one at half time) then you should stay at home. On the other hand my hubby likes a pint now and again and it will last him most of the first half, so once again minority of idiots who can't hold their beer spoiling it.

A bit of both if you can't attend a RL match without acting like a sc#mbag and i include scrapping,throwing missiles and pitch invasions then you should'nt be allowed to attend full stop.
I don't give a flying one if they claim taunts ,self defence etc etc a zero tolerance policy is the only way to go imo and IF you receive a club fine and it impacts your junior development then the chavs etc only have themselves to blame along with the "fans" who know who they are and don't shop them.

And that's annoying. On balance I'm quite happy to not have the beer for the afternoon, given that I can happily live without beer, if it stops the numbskullery. It is, however, sad if people can't enjoy a pint with the game (although few grounds serve a pint you could "enjoy" anyway) because of a minority (actually quite a large one) of idiots.

The trouble is, I'm not sure it works. Said idiots are usually pretty well oiled when they arrive at the ground anyway.

As for the chav corner's offences not being ban-able. I don't agree. Most places with decent stewarding (not many RL grounds) if someone is acting like a kn0b, jumping around making gestures and being abusive, they get politely warned that they need to modify their behaviour if they wish to remain on the premises. If they don't modify their behaviour, they get removed. The same can be applied to chav corner (and it's equivalent at other grounds), particularly over the course of a season.

so fighting, and possibly causing injury to someone, and chucking a missile which may blind someone should only mean being ejected?



that to me condones those offences

Blind somebody!?

Would you stop it with these ludicrously over the top statements. First we have fans stabbing players, then people been blinded.



Then... your clearly a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

How does ejecting somebody from the ground "condone" the act? What a bizarre statement.

Giving out bans would be an utterly disportionate response to the act. Its like giving somebody a prision sentance for a stealing a newspaper.

Bans should be reserved for those who commit at least moderatorly serious offences.

That'll teach them not to throw missiles which could blind someone

not ott just fact and violence is ok aswell in your book afterall fightimng comes under violence does it not?
As for the last sentence WTF?
Never mind with that attitude it'll be another 8yrs+ before it's even near to getting sorted.

By the way. Was talking to somebody I know just a few minutes ago, and I'm told that we managed to sucessfully id your missle throwers.

Have Leeds banned them? I'll give you a clue, the answer ain't "yes".

When was that?

When we played you at KC previously. Leeds fan throw a missle into the East Stand. Which unfortunetly resulted in 2 or 3 been thrown back.

I'll give you a clue, the person who gave you that information is probably talking through their backside - how do you think "they" have identified a person or persons from video or photography when there is no allocated pre-purchased seating in your away stand ?

To enter your ground I can pay on the turnstile and sit where I like in the away stand, even if I pre-purchase my ticket I do not have to provide a name and address - so which miracle of technology has been used to identify an individuals name and address from a video then ?

Thats the problem with security in grounds and of clubs using the cheap option of private security firms to steward the inside of their stadium, the stewards are often unwilling to get involved (I don't blame them) and cannot arrest or demand ID from anyone .

We had an incident a few years ago involving a Leeds supporter at an away ground where the away ground sent a poorly focused cctv image to Headingley asking for that person to be banned - we were asked at ss.com if we could ID the person, the person involved was actually being lead from the stand by one of their stewards who showed him the road outside and waved him goodbye, it was only later that they decided that maybe they should have found out who he was - you won't be surprised to learn that that person was never ID'd either.

Haricot or Borlotti?

Would depend if the person was a known problem causer to West Yorkshire police.

Ah, that old chestnut...