da bet nacional： Safety. It’s an ever present – and mostly legitimate – excuse for many of the lamented restrictions in the modern game. All seater stadiums? Safety. No alcohol in the ground and dry areas for crunch matches? Safety. The continued unemployment of Iain Dowie’s face? Safety.
da betobet： Whilst comedian Stewart Lee may be right in his assessment that a whole generation of people have confused political correctness with health and safety legislation when they complain of a rise in the madness of things, there can be no confusion as to why a country with a long and famous track record of crowd trouble and an even more inglorious history of stadium tragedy should be so hung up on this particular facet.
Many, if not most fans will point to Germany as an example of how a standing area can be implemented safely and efficiently within the modern mind set, not least Manchester United’s traveling support, who continue to have their allocations diminished – to little avail – for their steadfast refusal to sit down at matches. In fact if I had my way the German model would be the totem by which all football leagues are run, from stadia to fan ownership to their baffling admiration for David Hasselhoff. But the fact remains that whilst the worst horrors of the 80s remain in the public consciousness the political climate will never be susceptible to such ideas. Even if the most vocal opposition comes from the type of Daily Mail reading campaign junkies with little knowledge of the actual practicalities or the game itself. It won’t happen people. Sorry, tough.
However as with all decisions born from the best intentions, it’s inevitable that the fringe effects will cause controversy, and such an effect hit the headlines a mere few weeks ago with the sending off of West Ham’s Frederic Piquionne.
After scoring what he thought would be a deserved late winner for the beleaguered London club, Piquionne ran to the crowd, vaulted the advertising hoardings and embraced a few over excited cockneys in the front row. So far, so natural you may assume. Except that the Frenchman’s actions were deemed in breach of the rules on crowd incitement, and after picking up a booking earlier in the half, he was sent off for the heinous crime of over enjoying himself.
The natural fan reaction to this – I would assume (and you know they say about assumption’s progeny) – is one of exasperated distain. A stupid, officious rule dreamt up by the game’s out of touch suited bureaucrats (which I feel compelled to tell you my spell check suggested should be Bearcats – a far more exciting term than they deserve.) Political correctness gone mad as it were. But the other side of the spade isn’t quite as obvious as that mixed metaphor. There are two sides to every coin.
Attempting to prevent the crowd from surging is not a pointless objective. In keeping with the theme of confusion, it’s pertinent to point out in a Stewart Lee-ian type way that this is not the same as the rule punishing players for taking their shirts off, though it is often bundled together. That almost certainly (well, just certainly) is pointless, officious and as daft as a bat in a bag of nuts. The reason Piquionne was booked however was distinctly different, reprimanded for the possible danger from crushing he could’ve placed those in the stands.
Putting aside for a second the obvious retort that the striker was aware of the rule and thus deserving of any punishment given (something that fails to take into account the often inequitable behavioral effects of scoring a crucial late goal in a football match) it’s more pertinent is to discuss just how much danger his actions could have actually caused. The main causes of crushing in the bygone days of terraced football were overcrowding and enclosure. The implementation of all seater stadiums has reduced the possibility of the former all but entirely (in Premier League grounds at least) and no grounds in England – to my knowledge – still retain any fencing or gating to keep the crowd from the pitch, with that function now performed by stewards and occasionally police, for the very reasons mentioned. It may seem churlish to dismiss the likely hood of such events, especially since we can all see the possibility of a child being caught up in the surge and pressed against, or even flung over the seat in front, but realistically the commotion caused would be little different to that created by the goal itself. It’s a question of how far we take it.
Away sections are often more boisterous than home crowds as it is and if we’re really going to hammer down the prospects of endangerment then we might as well stop goal celebrations all together and return to the pre-war days of polite applause. Yes we have to start somewhere, but it’s that age-old reasoning of common sense that stands out most prominently. Piquionne’s actions were unlikely to cause a riot, or even much raucous behaviour beyond the first few rows. Even if they had instigated a mild pitch invasion, the event would’ve been curtailed quickly and the ease at which the fans could reach the pitch and escape from the mele would’ve instantly diluted the prospects of danger, as they would’ve in many tragedies.
Perhaps I’m being too soft, or irresponsible, but there needs to be some leeway for exuberance at football surely? The passion of the game is precisely what sets it apart from others as the most beloved throughout the world. The instant tribal emotions it instills are amongst it’s primary appeals.
I am not, and never will be, one of those who bemoans the lack of atmosphere the modern game and all it’s measures have brought about as an unnecessary evil. It was very necessary. But are we in danger of going too far, just a little, with measures like this? Why is it so hard to judge the difference between an act of emotion and genuine incitement? Why does the argument of consistency mean we should abandon perspective and relativity? It’s political correctness gone mad I tell you. Or is it?
You can follow Oscar on Twitter here http://twitter.com/oscarpyejeary where you can discuss the week’s fiercely debated political issues in a variety of silly hats.