BTRFTG

Shirt tug, as already discussed, matters not given prior penalty against Tanner for pushing him, perhaps causing Sharp's arms out. It IS a binary interpretation based on Law 11. The officials decided Sharp, in an offside position, did not cause an offence. I'd also not criticise Tanner for leaving Ndiaye. Vyner was out of position and struggling to cover Sharp. Had Vyner not intervened Tanner had him covered. Vyner's indecision was root cause.

If you want hundreds of soft penalties per game then, yes, its a penalty to them. Tanner pushes into and rises up over Sharp, who you'll note never leaves the ground. Maybe Sharp puts his arms out and grabs as he sees Vyner jumping back into him, who knows? The whole point being Sharp was not offside, as ruled by the officials for good reason. Rather than debate that we should be analyzing why, for the umpteenth time this season, we leaked a soppy goal because two defenders went for the same header? If Tanner goes solo he wins it every time. If he doesn't win it solo the chances of Sharp getting both power and direction to beat the well-positioned O'Leary are negligible. As was, Vyner jumping backwards, concertinaing Sharp into Tanner thus impeding Tanner's ability to win the header, knocking the ball beyond Tanner's reach to an opponent did for us.

God only knows what you make of Tanner's push in Sharp's back in the build up then...... Shall we agree a soft penalty to them?

Before Vyner gets anywhere near Sharp Tanner's already pushing him in the back to climb over him and, yes, Vyner's moving and jumping backwards into him.

Scott's, as again demonstrated last night, is a terrific player in space with ball at feet. Unfortunately for him and City he's weak in the challenge. Several times a game you'll see him bested by his opponent, deliberately fall over then attempt to grab the ball irrespective of referee and whistle. Fools nobody, certainly not the officials. Last night he did so six or seven times. Usually he gets booked for handling the ball though last night he petulantly fouled his opponent in front of the ref because he'd again been found out. What makes it harder for Scott is he isn't the only City player to play-act in this way, hence officials spot a trend. Sykes does so constantly, Tanner & Pring less frequently but are still serial offenders. Perhaps its something that's taught in the academy?

Amazing how many folks debate offside/onside decisions each week yet clearly haven't the first inkling of what Law 11 says or how it operates. The professional officials saw what happened and enforced Law 11 accordingly. Here's why. When the ball's played over both Sharp & Ndiaye are in offside positions but are NOT offside (that's default position of Law 11.) Having assessed if a player is in an offside position (they both were,) ask what offence is the player committing to be adjudged offside? No offence = No offside. Should either player have first touched the ball when crossed they then would have become offside and a foul committed. Should either player have impeded the movement of or impacted the vision of a City player (accidental,) or deliberately take action themselves to impact an opponent or attempt to play the ball, then they would have become offside and a foul committed. Ndiaye being behind and yards from both Tanner & Vyner commits no offence. Sharp, rather than impeding Tanner or Vyner is actually impeded himself by them - Vyner jumps backwards into him, Tanner pushes him in the back to prevent him jumping for the ball and himself jumps over Sharp. Sharp sandwiched therefore commits no offence and is not offside. As soon as Vyner touches the ball both opponents are onside.

Self-inflicted 'sending off'. Martin coming on reduces us to ten men. Actually, make that nine for not only does he fail to add anything positive he adds negative impact. Saturday we had that final free kick. Great position to load the box. Martin, wholly bested by anybody over the age of 10, pushes his marker over directly in front of the referee. To those who argue he might add something in defence, he doesn't, as he's shown multiple times this year. Unable to win anything in the air either half. Last night in the 'argued corner incident' his movement and positioning near post questioned why the hell was he on the pitch? He was never going to get to the ball first, even in front of his opponent. Yet again he missed the ball altogether, something in which he appears to be a specialist. As for scapegoating and his shot on target - are you certain the ball had sufficient momentum to have crossed the line had the keeper left it? In that breeze likely the ball might have been blown back to him given the amount of force he managed to get behind it.

They would have to advertise restrictive terms prior to selling the ticket. One assumes The Stadium of Light does not take cash anywhere, else confiscation of coins may be considered unnecessarily restrictive. There's also an argument to be had re The Equalities Act (2010.) Younger folks may not be eligible for debit or credit cards hence may be discriminated against when encountering issues getting to and from the stadium. Credit cards and (some) debit cards may also fall foul of Islamic doctrine should transaction fees arise, hence forcing fans to use these may be discriminatory. Visually impaired fans might argue they are unable to verify card payments without use of specialist terminals such they have to use money given it affords tactile information on that exchanged. I'll get my coat ...

I have it on good authority sparkling wine was consumed. Involved a case of 'Extra Brut' apparently.

Nothing sinister. The Heysel thug ringleaders at that end of the stadium were identified. Extradition procedures saw around two thirds of those requested extradited to Belgium. Of those, 14 were found guilty and imprisoned. Those for whom extradition was requested, those prosecuted and jailed - ALL were Liverpool supporters.

You previously stated fans were directed into the central section of the terrace. As the section of the report you've quoted confirms, this was not the case. I believe both police and stadium officials later claimed command and control was lost owing to the sheer volume of incidents at that end of the stadium overwhelming them. Its true they subsequently claimed much that transpired to be false but if 'direction' was such a key factor in the report why didn't the inquiry fully determine its omission, or didn't that suit? The common factor in the other incidents referenced was on those occasions the perimeter gates into the stadium were NOT opened, as the assessed risk was considered they need not be. It was the key decision they used to hang the stadium commander. As the report highlights, rightly or wrongly (hindsight's a wonderful thing,) the police commander took the decision to open the gates as he considered the volume and behaviour of supporters pressing against the gates gave concern to injuries and deaths arising outside the stadium. The commander in City's case at Roots Hall, more by luck than judgement, called it correct, with nobody injured. Its also worth remembering that Forest fans at the other end of Hillsborough had no safety certificate, enclosed, dilapidated terraces, albeit with a slightly greater capacity & marginally easier transit to the ground yet didn't encounter problems.

No I dont believe it could have happened to any club. That's why I posed the question nobody has yet answered. That fact remains in the period it happened only twice in Europe, with the same club involved in both incidents. That club has a reputation for fans without tickets attempting (often successfully,) to gain admittance. They've continued to do so in recent years despite their clamour for 'justice' (sic). Repeating deadly errors from the past - a funny way of showing respect, don't you think?

Fans weren't 'directed'. The evidence showed that once the gates were opened fans rushed to the nearest entrance point to get onto the terrace for fear of missing the kick-off. By then police had lost all semblance of control outside the ground and entrance, for which they were later criticised. Those pushing forward where there clearly was no room? Go on, dare mention them.... Its disgraceful Hillsbrough was allowed to host the fixture given its lack of full accreditation but paperwork, or lack of, didn't kill 96 supporters. Supporters pushing forward killed those at the front. Do you believe fans would have behaved differently had they known the safety certificate wasn't current? Same happens every week when City are away. Tickets have entrance gates listed, block entrances, row and seat numbers. And does anybody follow their terms of admittance? As the F'wits chant: "We're Bristol City, we do what we want..." Thankfully, rarely such attitudes have dire consequence.

Funny that Slarti as I recall strolling into Dog Kennel Hill and there not being that many there pre kick-off. Other than the then stand the other 3 sides of the stadium we were free to stroll around. The only 'compression' on the terrace was around 10 minutes into the match when The Wall turned up and City fled en masse from the entrance a la Juve at Heysel. Once regrouped there was the usual 20 minute farcical stand-off with both sets of fans shouting threats and insults at each other over the heads of a handful of coppers who couldn't have stopped a fracas had one ever threatened. If memory serves long before halftime The Wall, having made their point, left and returned to The Boozer by the station.

In work, part of my role was to facilitate the Inquiry so yes, I am au fait with the findings. The criticisms of the Police and local authorities post incident were detailed and justified. Attribution of responsibility for the deaths, as per the ToR, resulted in an all too predictable whitewash. What the cartoon highlights is an unpalatable truth that football fans sing 'that' song because its based in truth. Not only have the Scousers failed to accept culpability in any of the deaths and incidents that follow them, they attempted to present themselves as paragons of virtue. That fools nobody. Until they accept an element of responsibility in the troubles they've caused then the matter will never be fully resolved and some will continue to sing 'that' song. Prejudice would be to believe only Scousers with tickets attempt to enter matches, that none are worse for wear having not visited the boozer beforehand, that all are polite and impeccably behaved. Had you ever followed England abroad you'd know why they developed their reputation.

That the innocents who died, those who had tickets and were in the ground early, were killed by those piling in late. Fans who weren't being forced into the ground under duress, rather fans who selfishly forced themselves forward at others expense. Some without tickets, some under the influence. Fans who appear in multiple videos yet strangely who never came forward to identify themselves. These days its tantamount to heresy to suggest it was those fans pushing forward who killed their fellow supporters.

It was large, wide flat entrance from the car park, level ground and that's why a serious incident was avoided. My point being there shouldn't have been the remotest chance of an incident occurring and it was only my and others behaviour that caused it.

Nobody answered the question. Killed by whom exactly?

Blame everybody save ourselves, that's the way of the world these days. Heysel may have been dilapidated but the wall wasn't designed to carry the weight of the many Italians (and others) fleeing the battering the Scousers who'd entered that section of the terrace were intent on giving them. That's what caused the wall to collapse, folks fleeing for their safety because a bunch of lowlife thugs were intent on casing them harm. Doesn't fit the 'all Scousers are comic' narrative, does it? And as everybody clearly avoids the obvious re Hillsbrough these days lets bring it closer to home. Try Roots Hall season opener 91. The game where as kick off neared hundreds of City fans were still outside pushing forward and pounding on the gates to be let in. Fans making all sorts of racket and threats, compressing those in front into the gates. Pretty much all under the influence, some looking to get in without paying. It was only by sheer luck that when the police opened the gates nobody stumbled to ground, though stumble all we did. Else anybody going to ground most likely would have been injured or killed by those following over the top of them. I should know as I was one of the fools at the front pounding the gates. Like those around me we'd all been too long in the sun and boozer. We'd all arrived a few minutes before 3pm. Had I been the one trampled it wouldn't have been by the police, or because Roots Hall was a dump, or because Southend had too few turnstiles open. Though those factors would have contributed to my injuries or death I'd have been injured or killed by fellow City fans, not intentionally meaning harm but culpable nevertheless in their, shall we say, heightened state? Injured or killed by fellow fans, or would we too have looked to blamed others than ourselves? Had I drunkenly trampled a fellow fan to death, I'm not sure how I'd rationalize my behaviour or live with myself.

Fans were caged in BECAUSE of their behaviour.

Killed by whom exactly? I can only think of one incident across europe in that period caused by 'fans behaviour' that resulted in multiple deaths and those fans happened to support, er,.......

You should factor in waking up Sunday morning to find your hire car either up on bricks or a burnt out wreck. In respect of time and cost why not drive to Boro (only 4 1/2 hours) and if you don't fancy coming back same night stop over at Harrogate, York or any of the decent places off the M/A1?

How does one know what players are worth? Easy, it's that interested clubs offer. In Semenyo's case that was half what the optimistic fan valuations concluded (though we may now struggle to get even that mid season, particularly as all the '2 point conversion' merchants are going bust and Fifa show no inclination to increase the height of the crossbar to 40ft.) Scott - of late the more he plays the further his value declines. Yes, I appreciate he's only a kid but he's showing himself to be somewhat a 'flat-track bully'. Lovely skills when in space and not under pressure, weak and hiding in plain sight during combative games. Young and confident he should be screaming for the ball to show what he can do. Saville last week put him in his place. Yesterday he was anonymously woeful. Wholly mysterious why Pearson didn't sub him first? Conway hit the first team like a potential superstar in the making. Again he's a kid, but worrying last month all the good qualities he brought to the table appear to have dissipated. Strong & combative? Not the last few weeks. Pulling defenders around with his movement? I reckon he's been watching too much of Martin in training. Finding space in the box in tandem with Wells? Something's jamming their wavelength. Richer Championship / relegation bound EPL clubs may buy them to dilute the strength of a rival squad, but like Bryan before they're Championship players and the days of silly money for those is sadly long gone.

Football doesn't negate the decency of respecting others cultures but I agree Qatar should not be hosting the World Cup. We shouldn't however impose western values on an arabic long, proud & influential culture. I travelled extensively throughout the Middle East, was considerate of its culture even where it didn't concur with my own values and never had a problem other than once inadvertently sitting in a women's area in a cafe in Jeddah (not there was any obvious way to identify,) where having highlighted my error the locals watered and fed me with a smile and for gratis. You use the term 'strict', so what say we flip cultural norms to see whether you consider us to be as strict as they? I was once travelling in a cab in Bahrain, fancy top-of-the-range Merc, not some backstreet mini cab. Chauffeur smartly dressed in crystal white dishdasha, butterfly style shumagh, classy. A slight delay at a set of lights and he gets out the car, hoicks up his thwab and proceeds to curl one out in the road. Nobody (save me) batted an eyelid. He climbed back in and life continued. Do you reckon he'd think us strict for not allowing him to do likewise here?

Funny that. Many years ago I was flying Dammam to Doha and en route to the airport my driver highlighted the many abandoned vehicles that had crashed off the road following an overnight downpour that had occured hours earlier. He explained that as such deluges were infrequent and roads so slick, many drivers didn't know how to drive in the wet. Some drivers would leave cars abandoned and buy replacements, apparently there was a trade in such opportunity. Problem was we prepared to land in Doha just as a monsoon strength deluge broke. But a few feet from the tarmac we heard the klaxons sound, entered a nigh-on vertical climb and went into an emergency go-around, though not before I noticed from my window the heads of several unfortunate and drenched lackeys who were attempting (with little success,) to sweep water off the runway with brooms. As you say, H&S and water management aren't the best in the Middle East.