If you are interested, Huddersfield v Luton tonight

[Free Elvis Hammond]

Sentenced to 24 weeks, and a 10-year banning order

More amazingly, he's only 30! He looks about 55

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-61505835

[Woolly Mammoth]

Sentenced to 24 weeks, and a 10-year banning order

More amazingly, he's only 30! He looks about 55

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-61505835

He had a hard paper round it was all up hill.

[Arthur]

It's far easier to call for a sanction to be imposed when it isn't going to affect oneself. Hence, those who have no interest in partaking in a pitch invasion have no qualms about calling for a ban upon them.

Yet it is no surprise whatsoever to learn that the man who attacked Billy Sharp had been drinking: six pints prior to the match and another at half time. Take those seven pints of alcohol out of his system and would he have acted as aggressively? I would say not.

If we really want to reduce both unsafe and unpleasant behaviour at football matches, would not an effective measure - indeed, the single most effective step - be to ban the sale of alcohol inside stadiums? Pitch invasions take place, perhaps, a dozen-or-so-times-a-season; a blanket ban upon alcohol, however, would impact positively at every football ground every week of the season.

[RaySmith]

It's far easier to call for a sanction to be imposed when it isn't going to affect oneself. Hence, those who have no interest in partaking in a pitch invasion have no qualms about calling for a ban upon them.

Yet it is no surprise whatsoever to learn that the man who attacked Billy Sharp had been drinking: six pints prior to the match and another at half time. Take those seven pints of alcohol out of his system and would he have acted as aggressively? I would say not.

If we really want to reduce both unsafe and unpleasant behaviour at football matches, would not an effective measure - indeed, the single most effective step - be to ban the sale of alcohol inside stadiums? Pitch invasions take place, perhaps, a dozen-or-so-times-a-season; a blanket ban upon alcohol, however, would impact positively at every football ground every week of the season.

But people can get well oiled beforehand, and smuggle drink in, although you are searched.
To ban it would also penalise the vast majority who enjoy a  drink without becoming  aggressive or violent.

It's no excuse for the bloke that he'd had 6 pints-  would you, or I,  assault someone on the pitch after having that amount, or however much we  drank.

I hear on the radio today, about how they are cracking down on cocaine re fans.
Whoever knew that  cocaine, a drug beloved of 70's rock musicians, and 80's Yuppies, makes people violent?
I thought it was well known for causing people to stay up all night talking rubbish, rather than knocking 7 bells out of each other!

These people are already disposed to being violent: the drink and drugs don't cause it, though maybe give them the Dutch courage to do what they already have a mind to, egged on by their mates, who are of the same  mindset.

[Arthur]

To ban it would also penalise the vast majority who enjoy a  drink without becoming  aggressive or violent.

It would.

And banning pitch invasions would also penalise the vast majority who go onto the pitch to celebrate without becoming aggressive or violent.

What makes one a more acceptable course of action than the other? Personal interest. It's why I opened my original post by saying it's easier for someone to back a sanction when it doesn't affect them personally.

[Logicalman]

It's far easier to call for a sanction to be imposed when it isn't going to affect oneself. Hence, those who have no interest in partaking in a pitch invasion have no qualms about calling for a ban upon them.

Yet it is no surprise whatsoever to learn that the man who attacked Billy Sharp had been drinking: six pints prior to the match and another at half time. Take those seven pints of alcohol out of his system and would he have acted as aggressively? I would say not.

If we really want to reduce both unsafe and unpleasant behaviour at football matches, would not an effective measure - indeed, the single most effective step - be to ban the sale of alcohol inside stadiums? Pitch invasions take place, perhaps, a dozen-or-so-times-a-season; a blanket ban upon alcohol, however, would impact positively at every football ground every week of the season.

I can see where your logic is on this, though your proposal tends to belie your first sentence to some degree, doesn't it?

There will always be people that cannot hold their drink, though if you are saying the guy drank too much and was acting out of character then that could be construed as being intoxicated, and therefore it was a failure of officials at the grund in allowing an intoxicated person into the ground, or allowing one to remain in the ground, which is an offence in itself. I agree that alcohol, used in excess, is a social problem, both inside and outside of sporting venues, but banning it at footie grounds would not solve the problem, and would inevitably lead to calls for banning alcohol sales at all sporting events, and then where does it stop?

I seem to recall sometime in the past that there were powers to stop local watering holes being open for some hours prior to a match, and as that is where fans get tanked up, perhaps that might be a better option than a blanket ban at footie grounds/sporting events.

[Free Elvis Hammond]

I would guess that this incident, plus the Oli Mcburnie/Rhian Brewster one in the same game and the Vieira one last night, is going to result in a crackdown on pitch invasions

(Which will be just cause more trouble because it'll still be underpaid, undertrained stewards who have to keep people in the stands)

[Woolly Mammoth]

If it comes to it the only solution will be fencing round the perimeter of the pitch, and they may have to resort to six feet ditches filled with water and Piranha fish, if that's what it takes stop these pond life.

[Arthur]

It's far easier to call for a sanction to be imposed when it isn't going to affect oneself. Hence, those who have no interest in partaking in a pitch invasion have no qualms about calling for a ban upon them.

Yet it is no surprise whatsoever to learn that the man who attacked Billy Sharp had been drinking: six pints prior to the match and another at half time. Take those seven pints of alcohol out of his system and would he have acted as aggressively? I would say not.

If we really want to reduce both unsafe and unpleasant behaviour at football matches, would not an effective measure - indeed, the single most effective step - be to ban the sale of alcohol inside stadiums? Pitch invasions take place, perhaps, a dozen-or-so-times-a-season; a blanket ban upon alcohol, however, would impact positively at every football ground every week of the season.

I can see where your logic is on this, though your proposal tends to belie your first sentence to some degree, doesn't it?

There will always be people that cannot hold their drink, though if you are saying the guy drank too much and was acting out of character then that could be construed as being intoxicated, and therefore it was a failure of officials at the grund in allowing an intoxicated person into the ground, or allowing one to remain in the ground, which is an offence in itself. I agree that alcohol, used in excess, is a social problem, both inside and outside of sporting venues, but banning it at footie grounds would not solve the problem, and would inevitably lead to calls for banning alcohol sales at all sporting events, and then where does it stop?

I seem to recall sometime in the past that there were powers to stop local watering holes being open for some hours prior to a match, and as that is where fans get tanked up, perhaps that might be a better option than a blanket ban at footie grounds/sporting events.

Either I am right to say it is far easier or I am not. If I am right, I see it as nothing more than stating a truism. My personal predilection changes nothing.

In my post, I am merely trying to bring to the reader's attention - with regard to making football a more pleasant and safer experience - something which strikes me as an anomaly: alcohol is, to a lesser or greater degree, a behaviour-altering substance in a significant minority of people who attend football matches, and yet those who decry the actions of the minority whose behaviour it alters - the assault on Billy Sharp being a case in point - will call for many measures except a ban on the sale of alcohol, despite that we all know that even being in a mildly inebriated state is enough to make some people speak and/or behave more aggressively and intimidatingly - or even just stupidly - towards others.