Freddie Burns deals with a pitch invader

[Dixie]

Agreed. No way of knowing what he would have done if he had been allowed to, don't take the risk and ask the question later. Shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Does the name Ian Tomlinson mean anything to you?

 

[Daftmedic]

The good thing about the wording for use of physical force is, "I you perceive a threat to you, or others around you".
If the pillock wanted to press charges I would surmise the CPS would of ruled it reasonable and not in the best interest of the public to prosecute.
If he peoples elbowed him on the floor then that is another issue entirely.

 

[winchesterref]

Does the name Ian Tomlinson mean anything to you?

It does. And what a ridiculous comparison to a pissed up pitch invader heading straight towards you

 

[crossref]

what if the referee had done that?

 

[Daftmedic]

I hope a good session in the bar

 

[Dixie]

It does. And what a ridiculous comparison to a pissed up pitch invader heading straight towards you

Not ridiculous at all. Tomlinson died from an assault that appeared on its face to have been pretty innocuous. It turns out that Tomlinson had a physical defect that meant that he died from the relatively trivial force applied to him. The force was applied without real need - that point only needed to be tested because of the disastrous outcome suffered by Tomlinson. Was Freddie so familiar with this pitch invader's medical history that he could guarantee that he'd not have to face searching questions upon the person's unfortunate death? And if the guy had died, which of us would care to put our mortgage on the outcome of Freddie's manslaughter trial?

 

[crossref]

I venture that if the referee had done exactly what FB did, he would have been censured by the RFU and suspended. It just wasn't a controlled and proportionate reaction.

if a referee had done it, it would have brought the disproportionality into sharp focus.

but it's OK for a player to do it?

 

[winchesterref]

Not ridiculous at all. Tomlinson died from an assault that appeared on its face to have been pretty innocuous. It turns out that Tomlinson had a physical defect that meant that he died from the relatively trivial force applied to him. The force was applied without real need - that point only needed to be tested because of the disastrous outcome suffered by Tomlinson. Was Freddie so familiar with this pitch invader's medical history that he could guarantee that he'd not have to face searching questions upon the person's unfortunate death? And if the guy had died, which of us would care to put our mortgage on the outcome of Freddie's manslaughter trial?

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Browner]

Not ridiculous at all. Tomlinson died from an assault that appeared on its face to have been pretty innocuous. It turns out that Tomlinson had a physical defect that meant that he died from the relatively trivial force applied to him. The force was applied without real need - that point only needed to be tested because of the disastrous outcome suffered by Tomlinson. Was Freddie so familiar with this pitch invader's medical history that he could guarantee that he'd not have to face searching questions upon the person's unfortunate death? And if the guy had died, which of us would care to put our mortgage on the outcome of Freddie's manslaughter trial?

Burns would have to have politicians, judges, coroner or IPCC covering his arse, in other words ....no chance !!!

 

[pedr]

Soccer prohibits 'violent conduct' without qualification, and there are a number of occurrences of players being sent off for violent conduct against pitch invaders. Sometimes this appears harsh, and on other occasions the reactions by the players are so disproportionate that the criminal law should probably get involved.

My view is that it would only be justifiable to use direct force, above the level of restraining/grappling, if there was a real reason to believe that the invader was going to be violent. This thread's incident involves throwing the invader to the floor, which was clearly not necessary, and appears to have been deliberate. I don't believe that's appropriate - that someone is invading an area they should not does not remove the duty of others to act in a proportionate manner.

 

[Dixie]

Burns would have to have politicians, judges, coroner or IPCC covering his arse, in other words ....no chance !!!

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Browner]

I have no idea what that means.

The state would have no interest in protecting Burns' employer!

 

[matty1194]

I venture that if the referee had done exactly what FB did, he would have been censured by the RFU and suspended. It just wasn't a controlled and proportionate reaction.

if a referee had done it, it would have brought the disproportionality into sharp focus.

but it's OK for a player to do it?

Crossref, thats my bold, and no it may not be ok for a player to do it and no doubt someone at Gloucester will have a word with FB. Whilst they are having a word with him they may also want to have a word with their pitchside security who allowed the tweeded up fool onto the pitch and towards the players.

My two pence is that FB did not know who this person was that was getting into the players space and to be honest thats a fairly restrained stop, it doesnt look good but if that member of the public did not want to be physically stopped then he shouldnt of put himself their.

 

[crossref]

i think we would all agree
- spectators shouldn't be on a rugby pitch
- spectators on a rugby pitch who pose a threat to players may expect a reasonable physical response
- spectators on a rugby pitch may expect accidental collisions
- just because a spectator is on a pitch, it doesn't give a player the right to assault him.


So all these comments of 'he shouldn't be on the pitch' don't really get us anywhere.
of course he shouldn't have been there
the question is whether FB's response was proportionate and reasonable.

 

[barker14610]

If I am a player in the heat of battle, I think of Monica Seles first, protect the dumb drunk guy last.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Does the name Ian Tomlinson mean anything to you?

I'll see your Ian Tomlinson and raise you a Monica Seles!

 

[crossref]

If I am a player in the heat of battle, I think of Monica Seles first, protect the dumb drunk guy last.

indeed -but was FB acting instinctively in the heat of battle?

 

[Browner]

it doesnt look good but if that member of the public did not want to be physically stopped then he shouldnt of put himself their.

Tony Martin ? , I'll get my cartridges !

 

[RobLev]

Tony Martin ? , I'll get my cartridges !

Remember to set up the killing ground first...

 

[andyscott]

Does the name Ian Tomlinson mean anything to you?

Yeah he was a little twat working his ticket, and because a copper pushed him, he dies, well if he wasnt being an arse and deliberately pissing about the copper wouldnt have to move him on.

Ridiculous that the bobby got into bother, typical UK do gooders and try and blame the system, make someone in authority a scape goat, why because it sells papers!!! and the journalist scum run the government.

Only one side of the argument of course