|
|
Post by CravenMoorhead on Jun 30, 2011 1:49:45 GMT -5
This method is highly controversial, but did wonders to stop European hooligans in the 1980's. It is not unprecedented to punish the clubs for the actions of their supporters. This happened in 1985, in the aftermath of fan rioting in Belgium after a game with Liverpool.
All English clubs were banned from the European Cup championships for five years. Liverpool for 8 (although it was reduced to 6 on appeal). This could work for a City like Vancouver. If fans are going to smash windows, assault people, and start fires, maybe punish their team the following year?
I thought of this for awhile, and came up with a solution. Have the Canucks lose their first 10 games of the 2011-12 season by forfeit. This will dissuade fans from repeating these actions in the future, and would serve as a warning for other cities and their respective fan base.
|
|
|
|
Post by WpgJETS on Jun 30, 2011 2:48:01 GMT -5
This doesnt work when the roiting people arnt really fans and dont care. Many of those people were there to start trouble. You dont show up to a party with supplies to start fires without the inention of causing trouble.
|
|
|
|
Post by CravenMoorhead on Jun 30, 2011 3:00:30 GMT -5
This doesnt work when the roiting people arnt really fans and dont care. Many of those people were there to start trouble. You dont show up to a party with supplies to start fires without the inention of causing trouble. That is a misconception that needs to be adressed. The majority of the rioters were Canucks fans. The excuses from the mayor and VPD chief are major cop outs. In fact, judging by the testimony of people that were in the area, and having seen the footage myself, I would say at least 85-90%+ were Canuck fans. If they weren't fans, and came to cause trouble, they would have been smart enough to invest in the proper equipment (balaclava, half face respirator, etc.). The fact that only a select few chose to do this, along with the majority of the aggressors wearing Canuck jerseys leads me to believe what the authorities in Vancouver don't want you to believe- the rioters were Canuck fans. |
|
|
|
Post by roosta604 on Jun 30, 2011 3:52:01 GMT -5
This doesnt work when the roiting people arnt really fans and dont care. Many of those people were there to start trouble. You dont show up to a party with supplies to start fires without the inention of causing trouble. That is a misconception that needs to be adressed. The majority of the rioters were Canucks fans. The excuses from the mayor and VPD chief are major cop outs. In fact, judging by the testimony of people that were in the area, and having seen the footage myself, I would say at least 85-90%+ were Canuck fans. If they weren't fans, and came to cause trouble, they would have been smart enough to invest in the proper equipment (balaclava, half face respirator, etc.). The fact that only a select few chose to do this, along with the majority of the aggressors wearing Canuck jerseys leads me to believe what the authorities in Vancouver don't want you to believe- the rioters were Canuck fans. Curious if you've ever lived in Vancouver? |
|
|
|
Post by CravenMoorhead on Jun 30, 2011 6:20:11 GMT -5
Here is an excellent post by a forum member over at Calgarypuck.com that is worth reading:
Every single person that I know that follows hockey (outside of Vancouver), and whose opinions on the game I respect, were certain that Canuck fans were going to riot win or lose. Even my mother was betting that it was going to happen. This isn't hindsight talking, it is 30 years of observations on the worst fan-base in the NHL.
Where I think the Canucks are to blame is no one within the organization did anything remotely pro-active to discourage and dissuade their fans from engaging in this type of behavior. Their silence on the matter makes them culpable. For example, you have football supporters from Leeds United and Liverpool that think it is funny to make jokes about the Munich air disaster when playing Manchester United. Officials from those clubs make it known that they will not tolerate behavior unbecoming of their football club. If people are caught, they are banned - usually for life from attending club matches, home or away. And on top of that they are usually shamed publicly in local and sometimes national media.
While you simply can't prevent every idiot from engaging in disrespectful or illegal behavior, as an organization you can make it crystal clear to your supporters that the club will not tolerate violent, destructive behavior, inside or outside the venue. They did nothing of the sort and the only words that were spoken were after the smoke had cleared and club officials had reiterated the Jim Chu line of outside anarchists, professional rioters who were not "true Canuck fans" being responsible for the riot. There should have been pre-recorded messages from Canucks players, past and present, and team officials discouraging violence and destruction and encouraging good sportsmanship amongst their fans, win or lose. This didn't happen.
You see it all the time in Europe in football, cricket, etc. Teams, clubs, organizations, etc, are far more pro-active in dealing with problem fans and trying to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Even the Montreal Canadiens were actively trying to dissuade their fans from booing the US anthem. It wasn't completely successful, but at least they recognized a problem and attempted to do something about it, not just make excuses and shift blame.
While no one wants to acknowledge that their fan-base has problematic elements within it, it would behoove the Canucks to recognize this instead of passing blame and diverting attention from the real problem which is their fan-base is comprised of a high proportion of idiots. I've heard nothing of life-time bans for people convicted during the riots. Nothing of the sort.
When some Flames fans allegedly beat up an Oilers fan a few season ago, Ken King was vociferous in his desire to punish the offending fans. (See link below) Maybe he did, I cannot remember, but regardless the intent to actively do something positive was considerable. I cannot say the same things for the Canucks organization. All they did was pass the blame on to others, when in reality it was their fans that did the damage. Call them out. Ban them. Shame them publicly and officially and then maybe they can escape further criticisms. Until then, in my mind at least, they have some difficult questions to answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by selanne405 on Jun 30, 2011 9:00:01 GMT -5
Just my opinion, some of the people involved were surely "anarchists" who as Alfred in the Dark knight said just wanna watch the world burn. But obviously some of those morons were just regular idiots.
As for punishing the team I think they really depends on your definition of punish, I dont think its a horrible idea but Im not sure what type of punishment would be appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by CravenMoorhead on Jun 30, 2011 9:52:13 GMT -5
Maybe forfeit 10 games? It would certainly send a message to other teams and their respective fans to behave respectfully or suffer the consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by shtinky on Jun 30, 2011 9:52:17 GMT -5
If the misbehaviour occurred inside the arena (e.g. unruly fans disrupting play, jumping on the ice, causing violence) then yes. But what happens outside on city streets is far beyond the jurisdiction of the NHL.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcguire4 on Jun 30, 2011 11:03:44 GMT -5
If the misbehaviour occurred inside the arena (e.g. unruly fans disrupting play, jumping on the ice, causing violence) then yes. But what happens outside on city streets is far beyond the jurisdiction of the NHL. that is absolutely 100% correct. UEFA ( Europe's arm of FIFA) has only punished clubs whose fans have caused mayhem inside their staduims. Glasgow Rangers fans have rioted wherever they go, but they never do it INSIDE the staduim. outside when they riot, they are subject to that city/countries laws. |
|
|
|
Post by jhendrix70 on Jun 30, 2011 12:02:04 GMT -5
This is a good poll question. I'm still undecided however; It kind of goes in the same line the NHL is looking at when it comes to fans behaviour at Games.
Should fans thrown objects onto the ice: Should the home team be penalized? Many argue Away teams fans will thrown stuff on the ice to help their club....
|
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Jun 30, 2011 12:31:06 GMT -5
This is a good poll question. I'm still undecided however; It kind of goes in the same line the NHL is looking at when it comes to fans behaviour at Games. Should fans thrown objects onto the ice: Should the home team be penalized? Many argue Away teams fans will thrown stuff on the ice to help their club.... I'm sure there are still things to debate, but that one doesn't work for this because good luck having a handful of away teams fans start a whole riot! |
|
|
|
Post by ducky75 on Jun 30, 2011 12:33:09 GMT -5
In an article late last week, the VPD came out and said what everyone here in Van already knew - their initial reports were false, and it now appears that the vast majority were not "anarchists" but basically young Canucks fans from the burbs. Also, I know actual anarchists, and they don' have a violent bone in their body. What they call "anarchists" are just hoodlums, and not people who actually hold to the idea that the state is an outdated form of self-governace. they have to stop using that term in this context, because it is quite simply false.
As for penalizing the team, if it happens in house, and disrupts the game itself, lke the Leaf fan who threw waffles onto the ice during the course of play, then I can see a penalty. It's harder to do so after a game is concluded and the disturbance occurs outside the arena. I do agree that the Canucks should have been more proactive. I'm a Bruins fan and you couldn't have paid me enouh to go downtown that day. We knew this was going to happen.
|
|
mondo
Veteran Member
Posts: 173
|
Post by mondo on Jun 30, 2011 22:44:25 GMT -5
Perhaps have them play their first 10 games in europe or another canadian city. Punishes the owners, players and fans this way.
|
|
|
|
Post by wpgmike on Jun 30, 2011 23:01:23 GMT -5
Perhaps the police department should have been better prepared?After all it did happen back in 94. It's out of the teams hands, the NHL has no business punishing the team, for something that it has absolutely no control over. Guess if they make it next year, they won't have a LARGE gathering downtown.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Winning Pegs on Jul 1, 2011 12:41:59 GMT -5
sigh...
NO MATTER WHAT ITS VANCOUVER FANS FAULT,
if there hadn't been like 1000 VANCOUVER fans just milling about, not listening to the police, the 5% anarchists would have been easily caught
|
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on Jul 1, 2011 20:45:40 GMT -5
Not sure about the forfeit idea as that kind of benefits the first 10 teams that get a free 2 points. (imagine getting a playoff spot because you picked up 2 points that way)
Make them play the games and not allow any fans in to the arena for the first 5 or so home games, no revenue for the owners for those games
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordy Ramone on Jul 1, 2011 21:27:21 GMT -5
If the misbehaviour occurred inside the arena (e.g. unruly fans disrupting play, jumping on the ice, causing violence) then yes. But what happens outside on city streets is far beyond the jurisdiction of the NHL. that is absolutely 100% correct. UEFA ( Europe's arm of FIFA) has only punished clubs whose fans have caused mayhem inside their staduims. Glasgow Rangers fans have rioted wherever they go, but they never do it INSIDE the staduim. outside when they riot, they are subject to that city/countries laws. Ya. I saw a documentary about soccer and there are certain teams fans that when there team is losing by a lot will cause a riot just so the game gets cancelled and there players won't get embarrassed on the field. As for punishing a team cause the city rioted and don't agree with it. It probably would cause more havoc in the streets cause some fans will try to stop other fans which would just lead to more violence. |
|
|
|
Post by Jordy Ramone on Jul 1, 2011 21:38:18 GMT -5
that is absolutely 100% correct. UEFA ( Europe's arm of FIFA) has only punished clubs whose fans have caused mayhem inside their staduims. Glasgow Rangers fans have rioted wherever they go, but they never do it INSIDE the staduim. outside when they riot, they are subject to that city/countries laws. Ya. I saw a documentary about soccer and there are certain teams fans that when there team is losing by a lot will cause a riot just so the game gets cancelled and there players won't get embarrassed on the field. As for punishing a team cause the city rioted and don't agree with it. It probably would cause more havoc in the streets cause some fans will try to stop other fans which would just lead to more violence. Oh crap. I wrote all that without realizing I am agreeing with McGuire.  |
|
|
|
Post by WavyGravy on Jul 1, 2011 22:17:29 GMT -5
I like the idea of publicly shaming the morons who do this sort of crap, and also instituting some sort of ban on them attending games (length depending on severity of the crime).
|
|
|
|
Post by selanne405 on Jul 1, 2011 23:30:00 GMT -5
In an article late last week, the VPD came out and said what everyone here in Van already knew - their initial reports were false, and it now appears that the vast majority were not "anarchists" but basically young Canucks fans from the burbs. Also, I know actual anarchists, and they don' have a violent bone in their body. What they call "anarchists" are just hoodlums, and not people who actually hold to the idea that the state is an outdated form of self-governace. they have to stop using that term in this context, because it is quite simply false. As for penalizing the team, if it happens in house, and disrupts the game itself, lke the Leaf fan who threw waffles onto the ice during the course of play, then I can see a penalty. It's harder to do so after a game is concluded and the disturbance occurs outside the arena. I do agree that the Canucks should have been more proactive. I'm a Bruins fan and you couldn't have paid me enouh to go downtown that day. We knew this was going to happen. True in fact most if not all anarchists would be offended by being thrown into the same category as those idiots. Forefiting games seems a little extensive to me I was thinking forcing the Canucks to give up theor first round pick. Regardless of whether the NHL has the right to based on whether or not the incident happened in the arena the fact is it was a black eye to the city and nation. |
|
