The stewards are a joke

[Royal Lady]

Well "tango" man did a lot of standing up throughout the game, and he certainly wasn't ejected at half time, nor were his mates who were all around him.

I completely understand about the "no standing" ruling - however, time and again, we see the away supporters seemingly getting away with standing for prolonged periods, whilst the stewards "pick on" some of our fans - and these are the ones who are already at the back and not getting in people's way. Some parity with the treatment of both sets of fans would be welcome.

[Dirk Gently]

Well "tango" man did a lot of standing up throughout the game, and he certainly wasn't ejected at half time, nor were his mates who were all around him.

I completely understand about the "no standing" ruling - however, time and again, we see the away supporters seemingly getting away with standing for prolonged periods, whilst the stewards "pick on" some of our fans - and these are the ones who are already at the back and not getting in people's way. Some parity with the treatment of both sets of fans would be welcome.

Agreed, in theory, but in reality it's never going to happen.

Always remember that the club don't actually want to enforce the "no standing" rule - it causes hassle and conflict an makes it unpleasant for both supporters and stewards. They are forced to be seen to be enforcing these rules by the outside agencies already mentioned.

These outside agencies accept that the club has no effective way of making away fans sit if enough of them decide to stand, so the club are able to cut them some slack. But they know that the club do have leverage with home supporters, because those home supporters have member cards and want to come back.

So as the club have to be seen to be doing something to enforce the rules, it's a no-brainer for them to be doing this in the way which is the most visible and the most effective, as required by RBC and the FLA.

The real mystery is why it's different at away grounds - I supsect it's because our supporters have such a good reputation and because so few stand or misbehave that they are easily dealt with.

[readingbedding]

Well "tango" man did a lot of standing up throughout the game, and he certainly wasn't ejected at half time, nor were his mates who were all around him.

I completely understand about the "no standing" ruling - however, time and again, we see the away supporters seemingly getting away with standing for prolonged periods, whilst the stewards "pick on" some of our fans - and these are the ones who are already at the back and not getting in people's way. Some parity with the treatment of both sets of fans would be welcome.

Agreed, in theory, but in reality it's never going to happen.

Always remember that the club don't actually want to enforce the "no standing" rule - it causes hassle and conflict an makes it unpleasant for both supporters and stewards. They are forced to be seen to be enforcing these rules by the outside agencies already mentioned.

These outside agencies accept that the club has no effective way of making away fans sit if enough of them decide to stand, so the club are able to cut them some slack. But they know that the club do have leverage with home supporters, because those home supporters have member cards and want to come back.

So as the club have to be seen to be doing something to enforce the rules, it's a no-brainer for them to be doing this in the way which is the most visible and the most effective, as required by RBC and the FLA.

The real mystery is why it's different at away grounds - I supsect it's because our supporters have such a good reputation and because so few stand or misbehave that they are easily dealt with.

Away, it seems to be self-policing.
A few 'siddown's usually panicks the acne, bumfluff brigade.

[RoyalBlue]

The stewards were only doing their job - they'll get sacked if they don't.

You need to take your gripe to the Football Licensing Authority and Reading Borough Council, who are the authorities who make Reading FC enforce rules which are virtually unenforceable.

There not doing their job though, see my post

Maybe, but the policing and stewarding strategy at the vast majority of clubs these days is not to go wading into a crowd to eject or disciple such people - what often happens is that they're watched carefully on CCTV and then as soon as they go to the concourse they're ejected.

Only at a few clubs (for instance Fratton Park and The Riverside. amongst others) - or where the offence is deemed to be particularly serious (e.g. having alcohol in sight of the pitch!) - will stewards/police go wading in heavy handed and risk an escalation of the situation
As an example of this strategy, the first post in this thread says

..... at half time me and some mates went down the stairs and the steward pulled us all over into this room .....

So maybe these people were dealt with, but you didn't actually see what happened.

But if the club really are quietly ejecting persistent standers from the away support when they go down to the concourse, as they claim that they do, why the extreme reluctance to reveal any stats regarding the number of away supporters ejected?

Surely if such stats were published and word spread around other clubs that RFC do take action against persistent standers, the deterrent factor would be significantly greater. What's more, the home support would be less likely to get peed off by what currently appears to be very different standards of enforcement of 'safety rules'.

[Dirk Gently]

But if the club really are quietly ejecting persistent standers from the away support when they go down to the concourse, as they claim that they do, why the extreme reluctance to reveal any stats regarding the number of away supporters ejected?

Surely if such stats were published and word spread around other clubs that RFC do take action against persistent standers, the deterrent factor would be significantly greater. What's more, the home support would be less likely to get peed off by what currently appears to be very different standards of enforcement of 'safety rules'.

What good would stats actually do? Do you think away supporters would really check the stats before they came and would then think twice about it? There isn't any deterrent factor, not even by reputation.

[Mrs Butler]

The stewards were only doing their job - they'll get sacked if they don't.

You need to take your gripe to the Football Licensing Authority and Reading Borough Council, who are the authorities who make Reading FC enforce rules which are virtually unenforceable.

There not doing their job though, see my post

Maybe, but the policing and stewarding strategy at the vast majority of clubs these days is not to go wading into a crowd to eject or disciple such people - what often happens is that they're watched carefully on CCTV and then as soon as they go to the concourse they're ejected.

Only at a few clubs (for instance Fratton Park and The Riverside. amongst others) - or where the offence is deemed to be particularly serious (e.g. having alcohol in sight of the pitch!) - will stewards/police go wading in heavy handed and risk an escalation of the situation
As an example of this strategy, the first post in this thread says

..... at half time me and some mates went down the stairs and the steward pulled us all over into this room .....

So maybe these people were dealt with, but you didn't actually see what happened.

But i thought if fans were seen to be making rude and offensive gestures then they are removed from the groud, that is what the tannoy ?spelling? says before the game

These lads were sat until the very end of the game, and were allowed to make these gestures directly infront of several stewards

[SpaceCruiser]

Well "tango" man did a lot of standing up throughout the game, and he certainly wasn't ejected at half time, nor were his mates who were all around him.

I completely understand about the "no standing" ruling - however, time and again, we see the away supporters seemingly getting away with standing for prolonged periods, whilst the stewards "pick on" some of our fans - and these are the ones who are already at the back and not getting in people's way. Some parity with the treatment of both sets of fans would be welcome.

Agreed, in theory, but in reality it's never going to happen.

Always remember that the club don't actually want to enforce the "no standing" rule - it causes hassle and conflict an makes it unpleasant for both supporters and stewards. They are forced to be seen to be enforcing these rules by the outside agencies already mentioned.

These outside agencies accept that the club has no effective way of making away fans sit if enough of them decide to stand, so the club are able to cut them some slack. But they know that the club do have leverage with home supporters, because those home supporters have member cards and want to come back.

So as the club have to be seen to be doing something to enforce the rules, it's a no-brainer for them to be doing this in the way which is the most visible and the most effective, as required by RBC and the FLA.

The real mystery is why it's different at away grounds - I supsect it's because our supporters have such a good reputation and because so few stand or misbehave that they are easily dealt with.

Didn't we warn another club that if their fans persist with standing, they would be allocated fewer tickets next time?

[Norfolk Royal]

Surely if the club are carrying out the law, which is an ass, the club should be lobbying for the law to be changed.

If they are not, then they agree with it, and are a legitimate target for criticism.

[Dirk Gently]

Didn't we warn another club that if their fans persist with standing, they would be allocated fewer tickets next time?

Yes, but only because we were forced to by RBC & the FLA - it hurts us a lot more than it hurts them, because we're the ones who lose the ticket revenue.

That's the current tactics being deployed by the FLA - primarily because there's nothing else they can do - but it's been proven to have absolutely zero effect on reducing standing.

[Dirk Gently]

But i thought if fans were seen to be making rude and offensive gestures then they are removed from the groud, that is what the tannoy ?spelling? says before the game

hen you're nannying, have you never made a threat of punishment to try and ensure good behaviour from the kids and then not carried it out in the end?

You can be sure that the CCTV would have been watching them, but perhaps someone decided the situation was best served by taking no action- especially if the match was nearly over. Don't know what actually happened and don't know what they did about it - if anything - in this case.

[T.R.O.L.I.]

Ever get the feeling you're banging your head against a brick wall, Dirk?

[Barry the bird boggler]

He's not wrong about Ninian Park. I thought the away end was part terracing?

Last time I was at Cardiff they had bolted seats into the way end, HTH

[Barry the bird boggler]

I'm sure someone made the observation on this very board recently that another issue is that fans of LI appear to be left alone when they stand

[T.R.O.L.I.]

I'm sure someone made the observation on this very board recently that another issue is that fans of LI appear to be left alone when they stand

I don't think LI games come under the jurisdiction of the FLA (Football Licensing Authority), nor are they governed by the same rules regarding consuming alcohol within site of the pitch so I don't see how the two can be reasonably compared.

[Skyline]

Whilst in no way condoning what the OP has done and said, surely this is all part of the bigger issue, which is that football fans in this country are treated by the law as second-class citizens.

The law decrees that football fans may not stand up throughout a game, in the same way that it decrees that football fans with alcohol in their hands cannot be allowed to watch the game, even if they're standing in one of the vomitories.

However, rugby fans are allowed to do both those things without sanction

Given there are people who watch both RFC and London Irish, that means the same people are treated in completely different ways by the law, simply because in one case they're watching a game of football but in the other case it is a game of rugby.

Yes we all know the reason why these laws were brought in, and no intelligent person wants to go back to the 70s and 80s when it seemed hardly a weekend went by without news reports of fighting at one ground or another. However, with things like the design of modern stadiums, increased surveillance of crowds, and generally improved police intelligence systems, a regression to such days is unlikely. Indeed, if there is going to be trouble it is much more likely to be away from the ground than within it, and so these laws would have no effect on it at all.

The problem is that no electable party sees this as being a big problem, so it's down to pressure from groups like the Safe Standing campaign to persuade them it is.

[Mrs Butler]

But i thought if fans were seen to be making rude and offensive gestures then they are removed from the groud, that is what the tannoy ?spelling? says before the game

hen you're nannying, have you never made a threat of punishment to try and ensure good behaviour from the kids and then not carried it out in the end?

You can be sure that the CCTV would have been watching them, but perhaps someone decided the situation was best served by taking no action- especially if the match was nearly over. Don't know what actually happened and don't know what they did about it - if anything - in this case.

No you always follow through to get the correct ending..

If you allow people to misbehave then they carry on... and defeats the object of having the rules.

[Sharpy]

i would make gestures at you too if i was 6-0 down lol

[Hope of the Royals]

Personally I've never had a problem with the stewards follow the rules and they'll leave you alone.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Well "tango" man did a lot of standing up throughout the game, and he certainly wasn't ejected at half time, nor were his mates who were all around him.

I completely understand about the "no standing" ruling - however, time and again, we see the away supporters seemingly getting away with standing for prolonged periods, whilst the stewards "pick on" some of our fans - and these are the ones who are already at the back and not getting in people's way. Some parity with the treatment of both sets of fans would be welcome.

Agreed, in theory, but in reality it's never going to happen.

Always remember that the club don't actually want to enforce the "no standing" rule - it causes hassle and conflict an makes it unpleasant for both supporters and stewards. They are forced to be seen to be enforcing these rules by the outside agencies already mentioned.

Does anybody really check?

Given that there have been people standing in Y25/Y26 at pretty much every game since the stadium opened, and nobody yet seems to have complained, I don't get the impression we are in imminent danger of having any punishment imposed on us because a couple of dozen fans stand up up a bit too much.

[M U R T Y]

Whilst in no way condoning what the OP has done and said, surely this is all part of the bigger issue, which is that football fans in this country are treated by the law as second-class citizens.

The law decrees that football fans may not stand up throughout a game, in the same way that it decrees that football fans with alcohol in their hands cannot be allowed to watch the game, even if they're standing in one of the vomitories.

However, rugby fans are allowed to do both those things without sanction

Given there are people who watch both RFC and London Irish, that means the same people are treated in completely different ways by the law, simply because in one case they're watching a game of football but in the other case it is a game of rugby.

Yes we all know the reason why these laws were brought in, and no intelligent person wants to go back to the 70s and 80s when it seemed hardly a weekend went by without news reports of fighting at one ground or another. However, with things like the design of modern stadiums, increased surveillance of crowds, and generally improved police intelligence systems, a regression to such days is unlikely. Indeed, if there is going to be trouble it is much more likely to be away from the ground than within it, and so these laws would have no effect on it at all.

The problem is that no electable party sees this as being a big problem, so it's down to pressure from groups like the Safe Standing campaign to persuade them it is.

best post yet