Port Vale v Portsmouth
- Thread starter george.g
- Start date
Lifetime ban from all football, 6 months in clink, social services referral to make sure he never goes near any kids and blacklisted from all employment would seem fair in this case.
Southerner In The North
Well-Known Member
Disagree firstly the social service thing as that could impact a potential partner and kids which is wrong as they are more innocent than anyone as they may not even of been present.
Secondly any attempt at lifetime ban would be thrown out in court as per recent case there must now be a timeframe.
Finally the average Assault sentence in the UK is 16 weeks so roughly 4 months.
Someone who runs on to a football pitch to assault an official is an obvious risk to children, both their own and others. This man is a criminal who clearly has anger issues and an inability to properly regulate his emotions. An absolute safeguarding risk.
Fine then. What about a 100 year ban?
Anyone who is stupid enough to run onto a football pitch and try to attack a referee should be nowhere near children. If he can get that irate about a (correct) penalty decision what will he be like if his children annoy him, or god forbid they play football and he disagrees with a refereeing decision at one of their games?
A lifetime ban from all football might be a challenge, but Port Vale can certainly issue a life time ban from their games. It is a private venue, they are perfectly entitled to say who is or isn't allowed to be in the ground. Lots of supporters have been given lifetime bans from grounds.
There is so much wrong with this incident. Obviously the behaviour of the idiot, but where are the stewards, there is just no way someone should be able to run the entire width of the pitch unchallenged.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
That ref charity is correct.
They keep saying it won't be long until a ref is attacked by a fan...
They keep saying it won't be long until a ref is attacked by a fan...
Awful and scary to watch. I regularly do games at small grounds which attract 10-50 fans. They’re just as passionate and certainly not afraid to shout abuse.
Southerner In The North
Well-Known Member
Yes as this may hold in court
Southerner In The North
Well-Known Member
The kids thing is a decision for his partner as social service involvement causes issues for her and her children sins of the father and all that.
Also a court in the UK ruled recently a ban with no end date is unenforceable by law.
That doesn't work as many times the partner is too scared of the abuser to take any action.
If you are going to quote legal precedents fine, but can you provide a link as I have never heard of that. It doesn't need to be enforceable by law, if someone owns a private venue it is entirely down to them as to who they allow into it. No different to who you allow into your house.
Southerner In The North
Well-Known Member
max is 10 years
Football banning orders were introduced by the Football Spectators Act 1989 (FSA 1989). They are civil orders which aim to stop known hooligans causing trouble at and around football matches, both home and abroad.
They are usually imposed by the court after someone has been convicted of a football related offence, although they can be imposed even after an acquittal. Police can also apply to the magistrates’ court for a banning order if an individual has caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere and the court is satisfied that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at, or in connection with, any regulated football matches.
They can be used to ban an individual from attending football matches both home and abroad for a period of between two and 10 years. Precise conditions can also be imposed on a case-by-case basis.
In 2014 a High Court Ruling stated no individual may extend a ban beyond the 10 years as a offender may not face prosecution twice for a singular offence this lead to the ending of a number of high profile club enforced bans which he exceed the 10 year limit.
That's for a football banning order, don't dispute that. But a football club can ban an individual from their ground for any period of time they like, it is private property and they chose who they allow in.
Southerner In The North
Well-Known Member
Bottom paragraph if they get a FBO the club can’t extend it.
I think the point being made is that the club has the right to prevent anyone from coming in at any time because it’s private property.
As an example, say you were to know someone with a restraining order against you for one year - for that year they are legally obliged to not come within a certain distance of you. After that year finishes, they can return back to normal, however you still have the right not to let them into your house because it is private property. This is similar to the point being made. The only complication I can see is if the stadium is owned publicly, for example by a local council, in which case it could be seen as public property(?).
This is all irrelevant however. It’s not up to us to decide what punishment this man gets. I hope they hit him as hard as they possibly can. What really matters here is that a referee has been threatened for turning up to work and successfully doing his job. This is more important than whatever punishment they decide to give him. He is clearly someone out of control and unable to moderate his emotions to the point in which he has committed a criminal act to threaten someone at work.
You are missing the point, it is private property and owners will always have a right to say who they will allow in. No different to being banned for life from a pub or club, and there are loads of examples of it. Gillingham banned a fan for life late last year for racist behaviour, Sheffield Wednesday banned a fan for life for a racist tweet aimed at Darren Moore, and so on.