Nibor

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/DivisionalShooting/0,,10794~201325,00.html

Those numbers aren't quite up to date (I think mid December).

Note how few players taking that many shots have more on target than off target.

Also interesting how many additional chances the players who have scored more have.

I'd like to see the facts and figures supporting the idea that Baldock isn't very good, because these aren't them.

Because he sticks one of those away early on we have something to hold onto and gives the team a boost. He misses them and low and behold we're 2-0 down at half time.

He scores one and we hold onto a lead and lose momentum and end up losing three one, who's to say what would happen?

Point is, he scored two, from five chances. Missed one sitter. The one on ones weren't sitters they were decent chances but not ones you'd expect to score every time - MK Dons missed two like that as well.

Let's not mention El Abd (who was otherwise good) giving away the first goal or all three central midfielders and three central defenders letting them walk unchallenged through the middle of the pitch for the second shall we?

Baldock's header miss was a big blow but the one on ones weren't as simple as they might have been. Not a good angle and covering defenders made it hard for him to go across the keeper.

Scoring two out of five chances is a normal return for a striker so why people make such a big deal about it is beyond me. I said at the start of the season he'd break 20 - and only two strikers since Taylor have done that for us in the league - and he will.

JET wasn't at his best but I'd make two points. One: He still created a lot - sprung the offside trap for Baldock four times I think and started the move that led to his good chance in the first half. Two: On the two or three prominent times he lost the ball he was carrying it out of defence, with no passing options in front or level with him, and being challenged by two or three opponents together.

To be honest I think some people watch too much Premiership. You can't expect a striker to score every chance and when they've got 33 goals between them just over half way through the season complaining about either of them is complete nonsense.

Not over the moon about giving such a long contract to a 29 year old but agree we do need a bit of steel.

I hope this type of signing remains the exception though and we stick in general to the policy of young talent.

I would suggest double wages and captain's armband is nonsense. Doesn't add up with SCMP or common sense.

Hope he does well.

You could be forgiven for thinking we've played it all season.

You're not bored of this angle yet then? I am.

I'm never really convinced by three at the back, it always seems to lead to confusion.

On the evidence of the first half we've taken substantial steps backwards.

Yes, it's true: I've also just received the email from Lansdown. They've got it wrong yet again in my opinion and caved in to the pressure and negativity from a section of the fanbase. Stupid, stupid, backward step and another indication of the weakness at board level. This will cost more money the club can ill afford and cause more upheaval and discontinuity. Further evidence for me of the dysfunctionality at the heart of the oprganisation. They had better get the new appointment right or this will disrupt everything we've been trying to do and could be as likely to take us backwards as forwards. Well done to all the moaners: you've got your way. You'd better hope it works. I won't be holding my breath.

Agree. I'm now about as disillusioned with the ****wits running the club and the minority of ****wits that support it as I've ever been. I dread to think who we will end up with now.

No, but one of the City fans who were framed at Walsall pleaded guilty, because he couldn't face a trial - he now has a criminal record.

 

In that case Colin Sexstone rode up on his white charger. That wouldn't happen now.

 

And when you say jailed without a trial, you should be aware that there are trials and trials, as many who were at the Cardiff game will testify.

By all accounts what happened at the Walsall game was disgusting behaviour from the police but I don't see how it's related to what we're talking about here. They're very different circumstances IMO.

You really don't get it, do you? The point is that the police acted on a false malicious accusation and, although the police eventually released him without charge, the club chose to ban him for six months. That is injustice pure and simple, and has absolutely nothing to do with how other fans behave.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I would point out that one of the things that allow dictatorships to imprison people at random is the belief that "innocent folk have nothing to fear". Quite clearly they do....

If the facts are as stated then yes it was an injustice, I haven't disputed that. I suspect there's more to it myself. Anyway, I'm not sure what you think I don't get?

Heavy handed policing and zero tolerance from the club have everything to do with how other fans behave. They didn't just wake up and decide one day to be a bastards about it. It took years of violence for the current state of affairs to evolve. It will not change whilst people condone, excuse and continue that kind of thing so it makes no sense at all to complain about injustice at the same time as attempting to justify hurling coins.

I'm pretty sure nobody's been jailed without a trial so I think we can leave the dictatorship comparisons out.

I got given a conditional discharge once at an away game, I was picked out of a crowd and arrested, why?? Simply because two coppers apparently heard me swearing in the street and at that exact same time a lady pushing a buggy was visibly distressed and had to cross the street. I was basically told by my brief, the two coppers would have been on overtime, by arresting me they would have got a nice afternoon at the station filling out paperwork instead of doing some work. Easy money. I was screwed as it was two coppers word against my own. I now got a conviction that has affected me in life simply for attending a football game.

There are either some inconsistencies here or some info missing. Why was the lady visibly distressed? Who were you swearing at? If they were a mate, why didn't they give a statement in your defence? Your brief seems a little unusual too. I am struggling to see how you got convicted here if this is the full story.

 

Over a year ago I was attending a match at Ashton Gate, Just after half time I was returning to my seat and approached by about 5 coppers, I was arrested on suspicion of assault and handcuffed and taken tothe cells inI the ground. After about an hour I was released on bail, no charges were ever brought against me.

What had happened was someone who I know from the past saw me at half time briefly, that person then found the nearest copper and made an allegation of assault against me. The police then reviewed the CCTV and found I had not assaulted this person, in fact it showed I did not go within 20 meters of that person.

Great I thought my name had been cleared. Wrong I was! A few days later I received a letter in the post from Bristol City informing me I was banned for 6 months following my arrest. The letter said I had no right of appeal and any attempt to enter Ashton Gate during this period would result in a life time ban (even on non match days) following this period I then had to sign a behaviour contract with the club. All because someone had alleged I had assaulted them.

I never knew you could be found innocent by clear evidence (the cctv saw me walk to and from my seat) yet still be punished, I missed over half a season with a season ticket I already paid for and still on a probationary term now.

Yet the accuser didn't get done for wasting police time or anything.

That's justice for you.

What would your take on this be Nibor?? Should I have been banned for life simply because I was accused of something that I didn't do?

You seem to have a lot of bad luck with police but if the facts are as you say they are and you didn't do anything wrong, then you should write to the chairman of the club and protest your ban, the FSF for support and the IPCC as to why you were wrongfully arrested and why your accuser was not charged with making a false statement.

I would have thought your experiences would make you even more anti violence at football since that is the root cause and continuing excuse for heavy handed policing.

At the Derby game someone near me was hit by a coin, had they not have been wearing glasses they would have been blinded no doubt. This was reported to the police, even the culprit was pointed out yet the copper just shrugged his shoulders so the victim feeling let down by our justice system took things into his own hands and returned the coin, what did the copper do this time? Oh yea arrest the victim.

The policing that night was a shambles. There was no control. It was a free for all. The police failed to do their job so some of our fans took things I to their own hands.

I expect the police officer found it as unlikely as I do that you managed to identify the culprit correctly. To notice someone in an away crowd of over a thousand throw a coin, follow it's trajectory and see it hit a city fan, and to do so in the dark is quite a feat.

What's indisputable however is that even were that all true, none of it excuses throwing a coin back and potentially injuring someone completely innocent. The "victim" instantly became not just a criminal but a complete moron when he threw it back and deserves everything he gets.

I'm not sure anybody on this thread is condoning football hooliganism. The issue is one of proportionality. Football fans are often subjected to draconian legislation and the tactics the police use to enforce these draconian laws often involve excessive force and intentional provocation.

 

There was no excessive force or intentional provocation at the derby was there?  

NIBOR has easily proved to be the most out of touch supporter of our club

How out of touch?

You're a fantastic moderator aren't you?

Out of touch - sorry I'm not the one wishing I lived in the 80s.

By expectation you really mean complete speculation.

Why not through these scumbags and 'mongs' as you call them into a nazi death camp?

That would be too good for them no doubt?

 

By expectation I meant expectation really.  I saw plenty of people committing violent offences at the ground, I know it was all caught on CCTV, it's not rocket surgery to put two and two together.  Why anybody takes these second hand protestations of innocence as gospel is beyond me.

 

Anyway, people who are violent at football are scumbags.  There's nothing controversial or debateable about that so nobody should be shy saying it.  Our tolerance should be nil for violence, it's that simple.

 

As for death camps, I think they're too expensive to administer.  It's not like we'll get any useful work out of the scumbags is it?

I'm not saying it was over exuberance at all. Notwithstanding the clown hitting a police horse and some idiots throwing things - which should be punished severely as being so cowardly and indiscriminate - in the main, it was kids shouting and posturing. Some of them will have had fisticuffs outside the ground - very little direct physical contact took place inside. I don't think that makes them vermin or scum though I do think they should get the proverbial clip round the ear.

I'm not complaining about the police, just questioning why the need for a dawn raid. Maybe there were logistical issues, but it seems OTT to me.

I expect the ones arrested were the scumbags hitting police horses, throwing things and fighting. I don't care whether they were doing that inside the ground or outside - not sure why you feel that makes a difference.

I doubt very much people who ran on the pitch for a bit of a boast (who, to be clear, I've never labelled scum or vermin) were getting raided at 5am.

Of course, you will find the people who want to defend violence at football will swear blind that their mate did nothing, innocent people are getting pinched, blah blah blah - frankly it's not believable when there's CCTV and a long painstaking id process involved.

And let's be honest, dawn raids? We're talking knocking on doors here not armed swat teams. Who's being sensationalist really?

Thanks I will.

You are of course right that anti-social behaviour should not be tolerated, but some of your comments are sensationalist, ironically aggressive, and come across as attention-seeking, in a one man contest on how many times you can use words like vermin and scumbags in one sentence. I doubt very much if many if any of those who will eventually be convicted are indeed vermin or scum, and lets hope they learn from what will probably be a very expensive, disproportionate, lesson.

Dawn raids for a group of young lads that ran onto a piece of grass and shook their fists a bit? As we all know, most of them actually want to be stopped - had they wanted to they could have easily got through the stewards and to the Rovers fans.

Shock horror maybe some of them even had a bit of a scrap outside the ground. Whether you like it or not its what some young lads do, always have done, always will do. It's liable to happen every time large numbers of youths congregate, in any situation. Not all, but many, and I would suggest that in crowd behaviour even the least likely are likely to get caught up in it.

I'm not condoning breaking of the law or their actions, I'm not condoning aggressive behaviour, in the slightest. But it happens, and society, through the police and the courts if necessary, brings them back into line. Job done. But dawn raids and some of the emotive language you use is way OTT, in my opinion.

Couple of points:

They must have shaken those fists pretty hard to injure 16 people. I know from watching them that there was far more to it than that. Hurling objects into the crowd, throwing punches - even at other city fans who tried to calm one of them down, punching a police horse... could go on.

You might just about be stopping short of condoning violent behaviour but you are trying to pretend it was just over exuberance which it was not and trying very hard to excuse it. Attitudes like yours are why it continues to happen.

By the way, writing aggressively on the internet (which I'm not doing) and behaving violently at a football stadium are worlds apart so there's no real irony there. There is however irony in how keen you are to complain about the police whilst ignoring one of the chief causes of their over zealousness.

Why would anyone find it hard to miss?

People in the Atyeo or far ends of the Williams / Dollman would not have seen this

Yes they would have, you can see the pitch from all stands pretty much. It was hard to miss. There were people throwing things at the police and getting into scuffles all over the place. If you literally ran off down the tunnel out of the atyeo on 90 minutes you might have missed it but it would have taken effort.

 

Never saw any sky footage of City fans throwing anything - certainly wasn't broadcast on the programme.

 

Well it was on the news.

 

So you are saying people from the EE throwing things ?

Not heard that one before

I didn't mention the east end so please stop making stuff up. People from all stands ran onto the pitch and made a beeline for the way end.

Thought the only coins etc thrown were from the Away end?

Just from waiting to leave the Dolman I saw dozens of "City fans" hurling things into the away end personally and there were many well documented reports as well as Sky footage of the same, and you can bet there's a whole lot of cctv of it too. I find it hard to believe anybody in the ground could miss this.

You are a disgrace.

No, you and the others defending violence at football matches are a disgrace. Every decent human being can see that.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to the numerous recent posts about fans getting ridiculous fines and bans for next to nothing especially our own fans at Cardiff.

You neither know nor care about the charlton fans unfairly banned for singing about something away from football. That just about sums you up. A sanctimonious superfan.

Here's the thing parkender. I simply don't believe the people who claim they or their mates were victimised and did nothing wrong. You see, people who are guilty often protest their innocence.

There's no evidence to corroborate these claims that people are being arrested for nowt, not one bit, and there's plenty of reason not to believe it - not least what I saw with my own eyes at the derby match.

The Charlton fans you're talking about (in this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24746019) deserved everything they got in my opinion. Why would we want someone glorifying racism and murder anywhere near a football match?

On the derby night, I've no sympathy for anybody that ran onto the pitch and made a beeline for the away fans. Anybody who threw something is someone I don't ever want at a football match again. If that upsets you, tough titty. I'm not trying to be a superfan, this is the sort of reaction that normal human beings should have.

We would suffer far less overbearing policing if you people stopped making excuses every time there was violence and started making these "people" unwelcome.

youre a wrong un too by the sound of it

Yeah because I don't want violence at football. What a person I disagree with.

Well some innocent people have already been released without charge after being rudely awoken at 5am and carted off to the nick, so that sort of kills your first statement stone dead.

Don't see how, they've not been banned or convicted then have they?

But being released without charge doesn't mean they won't be rearrested after their stories have been checked.

Some lads who did next to nothing are gonna get caught in the fallout and get done, the plod want results and they will get them, just like the Cardiff sketch. It seems the law now have sweeping powers to pretty much ban you for anything, can anyone explain why those charlton fans who were singing about Steven Lawrence, on a train, after a match had long finished be banned from football for 4 to 8 years?

I don't see why anybody who doesn't deserve it will be in the fallout because there'll be so much footage.

I neither know nor care about Charlton fans but would point out that the police only get away with over zealous policing because of the sort of behaviour demonstrated at the Rovers game.

Of course, I'd forgotten I was in the wrong for wanting thugs out of football.  I do apologise.

 

I always chuckle when the old "grass" argument comes out.  The last resort of criminals is using a bit of stigma to try and protect themselves.  

Madam, sir, baby, child, whatever.

Peoples family and mates are getting life bans for NOT being violent.

 

I doubt very much anybody innocent is being wrongfully banned or convicted because there's reams of CCTV.

 

It'll certainly take more than vague rumour from the small minority that consistently defend those who want to have a scrap at football to convince me.

 

Bottom line is, if someone goes to a football match and can't control themselves and breaks the law, I don't want them there.

 

You're welcome to disagree if you like, I don't mind one bit.

Are you able to fit your head through the doorway when you go out? Your levels of sanctimoniousness and self-rightousness would make the Daily Mail blush. 

 

You are spending your time insulting someone you don't know on the internet because they are pleased that some people who have been violent at a football match are going to get dealt with.  

 

If my posts upset you so badly you should probably put me on ignore.