BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)

Subject: BS: Football
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 06:44 AM

I can't say I'm really bothered all that much about football, I will watch the highlights and occasionally put on a whole match and read a book while it is on raising my head only when the commentary indicates something "exciting" is happening (it rarely is).

Contrast this to Hurling or Gaelic Football. In these two sports the action is fast, flowing, fluent, furious and fascinating. The players are all amateurs, they play merely for the glory and a successful team will be thought of as heroes long after they retire.

All in all much better games to watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Football
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 07:10 AM

Televised Subbuteo...????

Subject: RE: BS: Football
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 09:42 AM

Sorry for mucking your thread up, Raggytash. It's just that Mr Red got me gander up with his sideswipes at footie fans.

Tell you what. I'll copy and paste my post here right now and perhaps some kind mod would delete the post from your thread...?

Football non-fans constantly attacking football for being tribal is, ironically, tribal. So you don't like football. Well a lot of people do. A couple of years ago I tried, months in advance, to get a ticket for a relatively humdrum, non-crucial home match at Anfield (Liverpool vs Villa). No chance.

There a lot wrong with football. Players' pay at the top of the game is scandalous. Most league footballers don't get tens of thousands a week, however. We tend to dwell on the most egregious examples, which are actually a small minority. Ticket prices are outlandish in consequence (though you'd pay approximately as much for a decent seat at the opera or for a symphony concert). There's far too much corporate involvement. Some top clubs are bankrolled by billionaires who can buy or sell clubs at will and that's not really fair. Transfer fees at the top are ludicrous, and they are boosted further by parasitic agents taking huge slices of dosh. Television rights are bought for billions a year. We all pay for that eventually via advertising, even though you have to pay to see the matches on the telly. Which I do.

But wassup? It's a perfect example of capitalism in action. So is Tesco, Asda and Morrisons, but I still use them. Another thing that will, I know, never convince the footie-haters: at its best, which is often, it's a beautiful, flowing game that requires consummate skill, tactics and fitness. It isn't popular for nothing. And its popularity, whether you like it or not, crosses class boundaries. It's a great diversion for millions of people who haven't got much colour in their lives. And what's so wrong with diversions? And, let's face it, Liverpool FC are simply the greatest in waiting...

Subject: RE: BS: Football
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 10:05 AM

Quite honestly Steve the diversion was much needed relief from the lack of comprehension in some quarters.

Having said that I don't really comprehend the tribal nature of football. I've witnessed it often enough but I can't get so emotionally involved over 22 men kicking an inflated pigs bladder around a pitch watched by 50,000 referees.

I'm pickling Gherkins today, can't beat a pickled Gherkin.

Subject: RE: BS: Football
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 10:08 AM

Never got too much into footie myself but I used to enjoy watching Speedway at Belle Vue in the late 60s. I can sort of understand the 'tribalism' (probably should use a better word) as it happens, to a greater or lesser extent, in most sports.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Football
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 10:56 AM

'tribalism' is probably a very appropriate term due to the need (often) to segregate opposing groups of supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Football
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 11:19 AM

In the west country region where I grew up, there was no real football teams to get excited about..

When I was 7, I was obviously caught up in the world cup winning hysteria.. but that didn't last too long.

Then I was introduced to Rugby at grammar school.
We weren't allowed to play football.

It seems to me that the brutal blood and mud fouling and punch ups footie of the past,
has been so emasculated and sanitised,
no wonder the modern game is such an anodyne fashion entertainment so increasingly appealing to teenage girls...

We watch rugby and boxing in our house.

My mrs is Welsh and proudly tribal when it comes to rugby,
she gets a real bloodthirsty adrenolin buzz off watching the tackles and bad tempered exchanges.
And now that channel 5 is showing free to view boxing with occasional Welsh boxers,
She can be heard shouting & screaming at the telly from outside our bay window onto the road....

Subject: RE: BS: Football
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 11:31 AM

It's just that Mr Red got me gander up with his sideswipes at footie fans

"More than a religion proved". Ya can't ask them to accept responsibility because of it. Not a sideswipe, a direct hit, deflected by the "not me" stratagem. It was the other tribe obviously!

And as for tribal - even a good hearted crowd are tribal. These days we don't see as much of the Milwall syndrome but it is not unknown to have an undercover French policeman in a gang of French supporters at the world cup in ie England. And if you saw Eurosport - the football ads are predominently about anti-racism. If you contrast that with a sport like MotoGP where they provide stands for Rossi yellow and Marquez orange but I ain't never heard of any antagonism because there are also Ducatista, Suziki supporters, KTM clan, Aprilia afficianados etc. More tribes, more dilute rivalry. A different kind of crowd who applaud the riders as they do their slow-down lap. F1 is in the same category (AFAIK). Tennis I would expect even more so. etc

Two teams invites more robust rivalry and it has been seen demonstrably so. Football must police itself it it wants to be respected by the majority (who don't give a toss about the over-priced game that we majority have to subsidise).

Large crowds are dangerous, tribal ones moreso. It needs regulation and review - constantly. The crowd dictate that. The rest of us demand it. The crowd think it is nanny state until ........... then they blame everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Football
From: Senoufou
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 12:49 PM

I know nothing about football (and could care even less!) But I'm told Norwich City aren't doing too well at the moment. Neither are Man U.
Husband is a Premier League tart though, and has a top for every team, which he wears on a whim. And a Cote d'Ivoire one (Les Elephants)

Subject: RE: BS: Football
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 01:07 PM

I've just remembered collecting metal coins stamped with footballers heads from the local Esso petrol station
back when I was in primary school...


As I didn't drive and refuel, I guess me and my mates must have been begging motorists to hand over their free coins to us....???

Subject: RE: BS: Football
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 01:58 PM

Well I see that there's plenty of anti-footie sentiment here. Of course we all subsidise it. Advertising costs money and advertisers pass the costs to us. But that's just capitalism and I assume we all operate within the capitalist system, even if some of us wish we didn't have to be of it. I almost never watch ITV or Channel 4 or 5 but I still pay more for the stuff they advertise. You could advise me not to buy that stuff, but, as I don't see the ads, I dunno what stuff it is. This website is peppered with annoying ads for stuff vaguely linked to what I might have been googling. There's no such thing as a free lunch. But I'm not bothered. You pay the same taxes that support schools and universities even if you don't have kids. My council tax pays for police that I haven't seen anywhere near my house in thirty years and for taking my rubbish, which doesn't happen because I live too far from the main road. I pay for a nuclear deterrent that I despise and I'm about to pay for a new vanity railway costing tens of billions that I'll never be able to afford to use. But my only recourse may be to vote out the buggers who want to spend my money on these hare-brained schemes. The singling-out of footie - we pay for the advertising, the policing, the clearing-up, blah blah - makes me question the motives of the people who do the singling out. To them, footie is a Bad Thing/tribal/replete with rotten role models/overpaid/overhyped/22 silly men chasing a silly ball/bloody Wayne bloody Rooney...

How about instead that it's great entertainment for millions, it adds colour to a lot of lives that lack it, it requires supreme fitness, skill and tactics, it encourages youngsters to get outside in the fresh air, it's a way of forgetting the vicissitudes of life for a little while...above all, it keeps me and Mike off the streets and gets me and him arguing about Man U and Liverpool (naturally, he's always wrong about it all the time, just like my grandad was) instead of bloody brexit and bloody Thatcher and bloody popes. Things like that are all I talk about with some people here and it's pretty hard to imbue the conversations with much bonhomie. But Mike and I are at polar opposites of the political spectrum and guess what? Never a discouraging word to one another ever crosses our keyboards. And, Mr Red, it's true that big crowds are dangerous. The most dangerous big crowds are called armies. Very few people argue that armies are a Bad Thing, not even me. Everything comes at a cost. Consider your position!

Subject: RE: BS: Football
From: MikeL2
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 03:08 PM

Hi Steve

"Your 10 Jan 18 - 01:58 PM "

You are more articulate than I am and I agree with most of your comments which you put better than me.

I have played most sports at various levels. I love most sports and these days as I am in my Eighties I watch most of it on TV. My No 1 son is able to get football match tickets and he takes me occasionally, otherwise I just would'nt be able to get there.

My family going back to my Grandfather have all been Manchester United Supporters.

My father though played Rugby League as a Semi pro for Broughton Rangers Belle Vue Rangers and Swinton.

I played football at school and represented my County. But my "ole fella" wanted me to play "rugger" and so I played both Rugby Union and League. But Union was my best love and I played for many years several clubs including Sale.

In summer I played cricket both in The Yorkshire and Cheshire Leagues.

When my rugby days were over Surprisingly I watched Football not rugby so much as I found it more exciting to watch.

I agree with Steve and his views on what is wrong with football and there is a lot.

I have played a little shinty when I was in Scotland and some Lacrosse back in England. These are crazy !!! I suffered more injuries and bruises than ever I did at football or rugby

I understand people who don't like football, that is their perrogative.

I can even understand people who support Liverpool. !!!!!!!!

At it's best football is thrilling, exciting and to me even beautiful.

Hope I haven't bored you all.

Regards

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 03:12 PM

Hurling is indeed a fascinating game

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 03:33 PM

Ahah, I see someone has expanded the title. You yanks have my sympathies. I've tried to watch American football a couple of times. This is what I've gleaned so far:

A lot of extremely-padded men stand around for several minutes.

Some kind of signal obliges them to stand in two lines.

One man throws an oddly-shaped ball along the lines.

Everybody spends the next thirty seconds trying to beat everyone else up.

After a short period of dusting-down, the process is repeated.

In the meantime, a bunch of very beautiful girls with frilly skirts right up to their delectable bottoms jump up and down on the touchline in gleeful and noisy fashion. This is, to my unrefined eye, by far the most appealing part of the game.

Am I missing something?

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 03:40 PM

Don't mock... I'm being serious...

I forgot to mention that over the last year or so,
me and the wife have followed the 2 monthly Sumo Wresting tournements on NHK News HD channel [Sky 507]

Fought over 15 days, with a daily half hour English Language highlights show...


Fascinating, and quite exciting at times...

Next tournament starts from this Sunday Jan 14...


https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/tv/sumo/

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 03:42 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, but I think my Grandad, who worked all his life in Salford docks and knew every pub in Salford, a lifelong Irish Catholic (my mum was born in Silk Street and went to Our Lady Of Grace) supported Manchester United because they were always seen to be a "Catholic club" managed by Matt Busby, a Catholic right down to his boots. Mind you, in those days United were worth supporting, what with Denis Law, Bobby Charlton, Georgie Best, Harry Gregg and, before that, the Babes. I went to Italy on a school trip in 1968 and the locals around Naples were mad about Bobby Charlton!

But Burnley had Jimmy Mac, and Liverpool were on the up...

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 04:02 PM

To the Mod who changed the thread title.

In Europe, and the UK in particular we play FOOTBALL.

In the USA you have FORMATION MUGGING.

There is absolutely no comparison between the two codes I don't know how you have the audacity to call your travesty of the format a game, never mind football.

For a start in your version the ball is very rarely kicked for crying out loud !!

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 04:03 PM

I lived in Swinton for 50 years, Mike, and then only moved as far as Irlams o'th' Heights but only every sent to see them play once. At th' Heights I was half an hours walk to the Willows but never went to see Salford at all! Now I live in Yorkshire and will probably never go to see Leeds or Bradford.

I did play league at school though so at least I know What is going on. Unlike Union where I have no idea:-(

I must make an effort one day:-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 11:57 PM

I thought long and hard about what I should put to clarify the title. I hope it isn't too unacceptable. I think I'd agree with the consensus about the comparative quality of the two games, but I'd prefer to watch neither one. I did enjoy playing soccer, though.

So, do you have cheerleaders over there?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 03:22 AM

From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Jan 18 - 04:02 PM
To the Mod who changed the thread title.
In Europe, and the UK in particular we play FOOTBALL.

I think what you mean is that this discussion is about "Association Football" (often shortened to either 'soccer' or 'football')
'Football' can be either Rugby Football, or Association Football.

In the US they appear to play either soccer, or a version similar to rugby football.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 04:45 AM

I a pretty sure the vast majority of people in the UK understand that Football is the association kind while Rugby is referred to as Rugby which, if we are being pedantic about it, can be league or union. As this is standard usage across all the media in he UK it is a bit daft to refer to it as anything other than football here.

The US is a different case. The term football has become common usage for the game they play there and, as a relative newcomer, 'soccer' has had to take on an alternate name.

Joe - We don't have cheerleaders. There is no need for such distractions in the games played here :-) What we do have, to add a further much misused term, is Morris dance troupes which have nothing to do with Morris dance as in the folk tradition but are groups of, usually, young ladies performing a set march/dance routine which sometimes has elements of what I have seen as cheerleading. This is done as a competitive sport in it's own right.

Confused? You will be...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Mr Red
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 04:47 AM

Consider your position!

Not near a football stadium, especially on a Saturday. That's my position.

Football is a minority interest in the UK (and the world) or another (alt fact) way of putting it is the biggest minority - it isn't, fishing is.

The problems are

1) Politicians are shit scared of pointing to the dangers
2) until there is a disaster
3) politicians can't blame the fans in spite of a clear audit trail of their contribution to any disaster.
4) when there are deaths, all fans become victims, regardless of culpability

This could be true of other genres but not to the degree. Why is rugby, by and large, devoid of the problems? Is it crowd volume? Is it the nature of the game that sees more violence on the pitch? Is it the image of being a gentleman's game? Is it that there is less money involved? Seen as a "Northern" game? Less countries participating?

Time was, I was told by those who were there, that before WW2 children were taken to see football. And rowdy behaviour was policed by the crowds' collective admonishment to individuals. We may be returning to those days, but are we there yet? I still see evidence to the contrary. And have the days of the Glasgie wet leg** gone? I somehow doubt it.

Society has been moving towards the ME generation as each generation passes. Large crowds are dangerous. Moreso when populated by the ME generation. Or two nations are competing.

I should ask - what are the Americans doing that would appear to work in Baseball? I know Canadian Ice Hockey had an atrocious reputation at one time. What did the governing bodies do to address that?

**think splashes from someone urinating on the terraces instead of finding the toilet.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 05:02 AM

At least according to Huffpost it seems the use of the word 'soccer' has only declined in UK usage since the 1980s.
I certainly remember a time when the games were either soccer or rugby. 'Football' tended to encompass several games, including bank holiday mini-riots where an inflated bladder of some description might be found.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 05:02 AM

it isn't, fishing is.

Not comparing like with like there Mr R. Fishing is the sport with the biggest participation base but nowhere near football (or many others) as a spectator sport.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 05:16 AM

the word 'soccer' has only declined in UK usage since the 1980s

Well, first thing, the 1980s was 30 years ago. How long does something need to used for it to be become common usage? Secondly, I suspect the term soccer was not a general term for football in the UK even before that. I grew up in 50's/60s suburban Manchester and everyone I knew used the term football or 'footie'. Maybe it was a regional thing as it is now a national thing? Not that anyone but the most nit-picking pedant could give a flying f*** about it anyway...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 06:09 AM

You are holding to your position as ultimate curmudgeon numero uno, Mr Red. Most human activities that involve participation by numbers of people, either as actors or spectators, have downsides. Three thousand people die on our roads every year. Horse racing over fences can cause horrible injuries to animals and promote gambling addiction. Protest marches often descend into violence. Referendums give terrible results. Downsides and occasional inconveniences to non-participants are part of humanity itself. Live and let live. The fact that it isn't exactly a majority who enjoy footie is no argument at all (would you use that argument against classical concerts or folk gigs? Glastonbury? Woodstock?), neither is it that millions of grown men, more than who go to football, like to spend their spare time engaged in a so-called sport that involves spearing terrified inedible fish through their bottom lips with a viciously-barbed hook. To me, watching paint dry is far more entertaining than watching snooker on the telly, but so what? Religion attracts many pejoratives, but the fact that only a minority of people attend church on Sunday is hardly a legitimate one. You see only downsides. Where's your sense of balance?

Football is too flowing to be able to accommodate cheerleaders, Dave, though what wouldn't be to like about a bit of a show just before kickoff and at half-time! When I were a little lad and going to matches at t'Gigg (Bury FC), the brass band would march out on to the pitch as on as the half-time whistle went. My mum was the registrar for years at Bury Cemetery (the dead centre of the town), which was right next door to Gigg Lane. It was more than possible for players to boot the ball over the not-very-high stand roof in between. Footballs found on graves was an occasional talking-point!

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 06:13 AM

Wha...? "As soon as"

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 06:22 AM

Linking back to another thread, Swinton Lions played at Gig Lane for a while when their ground was sold to property developers. Just out of interest.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 06:35 AM

Gigg Lane was always admired for the high quality of its pitch back in the days when most pitches were quagmires all winter. I went to a match in the early 60s at Old Trafford when there was scarcely a blade of grass on half of the pitch. Another dismal aspect of that match was that Man U beat Burnley 6-0.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Mr Red
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 07:08 AM

that involve participation by numbers of people,

But are the politicians shit scared of criticising them?

Football holds a unique position on that score. In the UK at least.

I have worked with a Celtic Glaswegian. He was a magistrate too. But all was a joke when it came to the rivalry with the Old Firm. He was even there when the Ibrox disaster occurred, though not at the same end.

It was always an amazement how he held conflicting stances when you compared views re Footie shenanigans and unrelated high spirits. Committed Christian and throughly nice chap. But he did puzzle me.

I guess he justified it by explaining it as a few miscreants, not the body. But then that is why large crowds are dangerous. Especially religious ones like at football stadia. The thing to watch for is emerging complexity.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 07:27 AM

But the size of the crowd in a sports stadium doesn't account for it.
Rugby International crowds can be of similar size, and just as biased in their opinions, but the same problems don't flare up.
Cardiff's Millennium Stadium was host to numerous 'Football' cup finals while Wembley was being redeveloped. There were no major disruptions. Admittedly the bars in the stadium were closed on those days, but there were lots of pubs on the way in (from the segregated fans parking at different points in the city).
The same crowd for a Rugby international will be sitting in the stadium with the supporter groups intermingled, and the bars open. - No Problems!

It must be down to the attitude of the sport, and its supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: JMB
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 08:31 AM

When I hear the term football, I first think of Association Football or Gaelic Football or Rugby Football. There is also Australian form of football I understand. I feel that Rugby is more appealing to me than American Football. The game that the Americans play is slow moving game. As soon as the ball hits the ground or if the player in possession gets tackled, the play is dead. In Rugby, dropping the ball or getting tackled will result in the play continuing. Also, in Rugby, you have to pass the ball to a team mate behind you. Forward passes are illegal which makes for a good challenge. I played a little Rugby when I was younger and worked at major local tournaments with tasks such as running touch. It's a fun game. I do enjoy the American game sometimes, though. If you're from Canada and a big American Football fan, you would know that there is a Canadian form of rules of the American football. I understand that in Canada, you have three downs opposed to the four in America. If you're unfamiliar with the term, it's of course how many chances your team has to make it over ten yards to keep in possession of the ball or losing possession. The Canadian field length is 110 yards opposed to the 100 yards in America.

Association Football: I am a big supporter of Glasgow Celtic FC in Scotland. Football in Europe to me is like a religion and a way of life. It is part of my individual culture.

When I see hockey mentioned above: The level of roughness in hockey is diverse when it comes to history and geography. Throughout time, and the many regions where the game is played, the brand of hockey is different. Not only in how rough the players are, but in basic rules of the play such as the two line pass rule. That has been removed from the game several years ago which makes the game go faster. Back to roughness: In the Maritime provinces, the junior level of hockey in the 1990s was laden with fi

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: JMB
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 08:33 AM

was laden with one on one, line and bench brawls. At one time, you could have two fights for a player in a game before they were ejected. In the 90s, the violence was fueled by fierce and passonate rivalries and all aspects of the game were unpredictable. You never knew what was going to happen or when, and the crowds were massive.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: JMB
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 08:36 AM

I've heard tell in some Asian countries, there is no violence in hockey. It is not tolerated. If you fight your punishment is really stiff.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 09:50 AM

13,000,000 people attend Premier League games each year, and there are three more senior leagues and lots of minor leagues below that. I'm puzzled by all this talk of crowd trouble at matches being such a big issue. I can't remember the last time I heard of a major outbreak of violence at a match. You have to go back years. Grounds are far safer places these days, more comfortable, far better organised, mostly with covered stands and far more people seated, and generally with a zero-tolerance ethos in place. If you make big trouble you'll be caught on camera and banned for life. So, basically, come off it. You're way out of date.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 10:04 AM

Steve, my last experience of crowd "trouble" was only 11 or 12 years ago.

In Huddersfield when they play Leeds United the number of Police bussed in from other towns had to be seen to be believed,but they arrived in strength and fully equipped for riots.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 10:20 AM

Trying to remember my social history...

But wasn't there a period in the 80s or early 90s when former ultra violent football hooligan gangs caught on to rave culture
and stated smoking themselves placid and chilled out on skunk...???

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 10:21 AM

But does it still happen? A big police turnout as a precautionary measure in certain circumstances is sensible. They do that for the Trooping of the Colour too! And just wait 'til you see that royal wedding... I can't tell you the number of times I've been hassled and herded around by dozens of cops whilst attending peaceful demos. It isn't really fair to blame people for something they haven't done, and may not do, just because you see a lot of policemen there. But there has been trouble in the past, so, as I say, taking precautions is the sensible thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 10:39 AM

I must say my only experiences with crowd trouble have both been with football crowds in Manchester and they were probably about 10 years or so ago.

There was one occasion in Manchester itself when a Scottish club was playing A Russian club and there were awful fights and brawls. There were also several drunks laying across the pavement on Deansgate in the early afternoon which was very intimidating. I was considering letting 15 stone of Gnome walk across them but thought better of it!

The other couple of times were when I was working in Salford Quays and Man U were playing. From the colours these were Man U fans on both occasions. The first time I was trying to drive from work on normal roads at normal going home time and was forced to stop dues to a large crowd blocking the whole road in front of me. There was a heavy police presence moving them on but my car and the ones in front of and behind me were covered in spit when the crown had passed. Not exactly life threatening but not nice :-(

The second time I was on foot and witnessed a crowd of 'fans' marching and chanting along the side of the quays, throwing anything that was not screwed down into the water. To crown it all, 2 or 3 of them proceeded to urinate in the middle of the road while others cheered.

I do appreciate that these are isolated incidents but it is these that sour the experience for everyone concerned.

Sorry Steve

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Allan Conn
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 12:05 PM

The main sport here in the Scottish Borders is rugby and it has been so for more than a century. I have never heard anyone say there are going to watch 'football' when they are actually meaning 'rugby'. Yes officially it is rugby football but everyone knows when someone is talking about football they are meaning the round ball game.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 12:41 PM

I should have added to my rant that I would never tar all football fans with the same brush as those rogues I came across. The vast majority are ordinary people who have a passion for something they clearly enjoy. To do so would be akin to saying all Muslims are terrorists. Using the same analogy the authorities would have as much difficulty in eliminating those few as Islam has with it's wrong 'uns.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 12:50 PM

We could always compare the proportion of footie fans who spit on cars, etc., with the proportion of dog-owners who let their dogs shit and piss all over the streets (including pissing on my car wheels). If Bude is anything to go by I should think there's no competition...

Not trying to do "he does it too, Miss," but just highlighting the point again that most human endeavours have downsides...

Live and let live!

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: MikeL2
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 02:48 PM

Hi Steve

You are quite right Manchester United was seen to represent the Roman Catholic side of Manchester. Indeed My parents and grand parents were Catholic. They were very strong United followers.

My brother and I were educated in Catholic schools. Salford had a very strong Catholic representation.

I think that United were Catholic before Busby came and he strengthened United's Catholic reliance.

As far as I know there was no bitterness among the Catholics and protestants.

I lived and worked in Scotland and Celtic and Rangers had religious
attachments. I would say that the differences in Scotland were more strong than in England.

I went to watch a couple of Rangers v Celtic games. They were played on New Years day and there was lots of crowd problems.

Cheers

Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: MikeL2
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 03:03 PM

Hi Dave

You don't know what you missed !!! Some great League was available in the Salford/Swinton area. I can understand you knowing a little about league but not much about Union. I played both. - a couple of years at Leeague and for almost 30 years at Union. I remember towards the end of my career I was made Captain. Union was changing becoming more professional. As we came on the pitch at the start of my last year the Referee read out all the new Laws. I said to him " I have played for 30 years without understanding the old rules so don't expect me to change now.

Cheers
mike

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Raggytash
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 04:45 PM

I wonder MikeL, with what you have said about your upbringing and schooling, whether we may have attended the same Roman Catholic Grammar school in Salford which just happened to be on Weaste Lane?

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 18 - 05:04 PM

Just up the road from the Willows as well!

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jan 18 - 03:31 AM

From: Steve Shaw
We could always compare the proportion of footie fans who spit on cars, etc., with the proportion of dog-owners who let their dogs shit and piss all over the streets

The footie fans can, presumably, be expected to know better than the dogs which may or may not be with/controlled by their owners.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 18 - 03:34 AM

I do believe that Steve referred to 'the dog owners who let etc.' rather than their dogs. Do you just argue with everything that he says on principle?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Jan 18 - 03:39 AM

No, I don't argue with everything he says on principle.

"Dog owners who let . . ." does not actually mean the dog owners are present, or that they are capable of controlling their dogs to that extent even if they are present.
The dog owners may not be able to control their dogs, but the footie fans should be able to control themselves.
The examples given seem to be of footie fans going out of their way to be obnoxious. The dogs are just answering the call of nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Football (not the U.S. kind)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 18 - 04:04 AM

"Dog owners who let . . ." does not actually mean the dog owners are present

It doesn't matter whether they are present or not. It is still the owners responsibility. Have you seen my comments on different languages going on Mudcat? Maybe you and I are just on different wavelengths.

DtG