The fan who jumped on Haaland

[ganganvince]

Because he hasn't got an answer to the fact that certain City fans will condemn a dipper for pushing someone into a fountain but then refuse to condemn, and will even applaud as commendable passion, someone for running onto the field of play during a match,(an illegal act) jumping on and potentially injuring one of our players because they happen to be a City fan.
Now, while some would call that sticking up for one of our own, others would prefer to call it what it actually is, hypocrisy.

TBF they applauded the dipper fan who ran on and injured that nice man Mr Robertson

 

[SebastianBlue]

jesus

Wouldn’t bring that woke progressive populist in to this…

 

[bluevengence]

73 pages...lol

 

[FantasyIreland]

73 pages...lol

And in that time he has lost his clown status.

 

[SebastianBlue]

And in that time he has lost his clown status.

You know what they say: for people accustomed to being a clown, losing clown status can feel like oppression.

 

[FantasyIreland]

You know what they say: for people accustomed to being a clown, losing clown status can feel like oppression.

Its not a laughing matter.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Its not a laughing matter.

That is definitely the case for nearly all clowns.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Here is my position and I will leave it at that so I don’t attract the wrath of my old colleagues:

If someone decides to take a certain action, knowing the consequences potentially attached to that action, it does not matter if they took that action in a moment of “passion” or in a premeditated, planned manner: they should face the consequences of their action.

And rules/laws against pitch invasion are incredibly important to maintaining order at football (and similar rules/laws for other large scale events), as is enforcement of those rules/laws as deterrence against violations of those rules/laws.

Almost no event—football match, concert, festival, etc.—has sufficient crowd control to stop more than a few people from entering the pitch/stage/restricted area, so strong deterrence is really the only thing maintaining order. It is a social restraint mostly based on collective agreement on appropriate behaviour and fear of consequences of acting outside of that appropriate behaviour.

And all of that applies equally to fellow blues as it does to fans of other clubs. It has to, otherwise we are exactly the sort of people we regular decry and ridicule: those that believe they should be able to do whatever they want without consequence.

I agree broadly with what you are saying, other than whether it was premeditated or in the heat of passion not mattering. The latter being some mitigation as to punishment, but not a defence to the offence committed.

This lad has to be punished for reasons of deterrence as much as anything else, and he should accept that if it is proportionate and condign - but that punishment should not incur a lifetime ban.

A couple of seasons seems about right. Certainly the rest of this one as a minimum. If I did the same in a moment of passion, I’d consider that a fair sanction. You simply can’t have people running on the pitch like that and for it not to be punished.

He’s not killed anyone, and I’m sure he’s a good lad, but this cannot pass without a significant sanction being imposed on the individual concerned.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I agree broadly with what you are saying, other than whether it was premeditated or in the heat of passion not mattering.

The latter being some mitigation as to punishment, but not a defence to the offence committed.

This lad has to be punished for reasons of deterrence as much as anything else, and he should accept that if it is proportionate and consign - but that punishment should not involve a lifetime ban.

A couple of seasons seems about right. Certainly the rest of this one as a minimum. If I did the same in a moment of passion, I’d consider that a fair sanction. You simply can’t have people running on the pitch like that and for it not to be punished.

He’s not killed anyone, and I’m sure he’s a good lad, but this cannot pass without a significant sanction being imposed on the individual concerned.

Just to clarify, it seems we agree in full, as I wasn’t arguing the intent behind the act can’t be a consideration for determining severity of consequences, but rather it can’t be the determinate of whether consequences are imposed at all.

That is, I am fine with someone arguing that he doesn’t deserve the same ban as that idiot that ran on to the pitch to sucker punch Grealish when he was still at Villa, but I am absolutely opposed to the argument that he should face no ban because he invaded the pitch in a “moment of passion”.

As you and I have said: the rules/laws are there for deterence and maintaining the fragile socially-imposed restrictions on behaviour. And just like with any rules/laws, they literally only exist if they are enforced; otherwise they are merely words on paper filed in a cabinet somewhere or in a digital file in the cloud.

 

[mackenzie]

Just to clarify, it seems we agree in full, as I wasn’t arguing the intent behind the act can’t be a consideration for determining severity of consequences, but rather it can’t be the determinate of whether consequences are imposed at all.

That is, I am fine with someone arguing that he doesn’t deserve the same ban as that idiot that ran on to the pitch to sucker punch Grealish when he was still at Villa, but I am absolutely opposed to the argument that he should face no ban because he invaded the pitch in a “moment of passion”.

As you and I have said: the rules/laws are there for deterence and maintaining the fragile socially-imposed restrictions on behaviour. And just like with any rules/laws, they literally only exist if they are enforced; otherwise they are merely words on paper filed in a cabinet somewhere or in a digital file in the cloud.

And that's fine. I agree with that.

However, the level of insults from some on this thread are completely out of proportion to what he actually did. And I think therein lies the difference.
He wasn't malicious, he wasn't violent, he didn't "cloud" a great moment. In fact, for some, he added to it.

Yes, he should be banned. However, I certainly wasn't upset by it and neither was Haaland or the other players by the look of it. Just some people on here.