jerseyhotspur
Registered
"ultra wannabes" AKA annoying soccer hipsters.
No More Smoke At Ys
- Thread starter Kubah
- Start date
"ultra wannabes" AKA annoying soccer hipsters.
I believe some Montreal fans were ejected, no idea if they got the right ones or not
It's a great message and even better that there is a dialog between the supporters groups and club security. That's the only way things are going to get worked out.
jerseyhotspur
Registered
do the other 19 teams in MLS have this same issue with people bringing in smoke bombs (and people complaining why they can't bring in smoke bombs)?
Why not let NYCFC staff lead songs for us too? Or make us some nice banners? Personally I'm dubious that the supporters section should ever be relying on any club-sanctioned/pre-authorized ways to generate 'atmosphere'.
Seattle shoots off giant flames for a goal. No stadium is going to allow fans to bring in a detonate pyrotechnics on their own. I don;t see the slippery slope from here to songs. BTW, if the club could come up with something more entertaining than hey baby, i'd be all for it.
Please hear me out on this. It may be a bit out of the ordinary, and possibly even qualify as cruel and unusual punishment, but what if the team implemented a policy setting forth that if you are caught using prohibited pyrotechnics in the stadium, you will be forced to take a Walk of Atonement NYCFC style, which shall include a charging slide tackle by Nemec, an elbow to the back of the head by Jacobson, nuggies by securitas, among other things, all while the TR sings Hey Baby on continuous loop as City Beats contemporaneously plays Empire State of Mind? That may serve to effectively discourage violators.
I used to photograph Quakes games and this is exactly what they did for some of the bigger games. They let the Ultras put smoke canisters (bigger than the ones people are bringing into YS) on the field, in front of the supporter section. They let the Ultra members set them off too. It made for a pretty awesome wall of blue and white smoke.
So it is possible to meet in the middle.
Sit a whole game in the "splash zone" as CP Scouse tries his first beer?
franch
Registered
TommyM
Registered
I hope we can all help TR out to try and find a compromise here.
But their current leadership really should be closer to their membership, involve them in these discussions.
That way they don't rely on the narking to stadium security option, which is will create more friction within the SG and with other fans. Any SG certainly can have people ejected (without giving reason), but getting them yanked and potentially arrested/banned for smoke is just going to make things much much worse.
The idea is to get those with the smoke on board, offer them something in exchange. Like a say in how this is done, policed, how communication goes with the club, what message the organized support sends the club.
Offering them "then the SG can have flags & megaphones" fails, as it
a) is a benefit for the SG, not those setting off smoke they want to convince;
b) ignores that we should already have those things. We shouldn't be asked to give in for something that the club should have arranged already on day one;
c) still makes this about the SG leader giving orders, not actually convincing people to self police.
Otherwise, you're just going to alienate a minority, they'll be angry and won't think anything the SG says is legitimate, and f**k with the SG's rules just to f**k with them.
That will really boomerang on the club. That fact needs to be explained to the club (by the SGs) as well. This can't be done by an order, but only by bringing everyone along.
But their current leadership really should be closer to their membership, involve them in these discussions.
That way they don't rely on the narking to stadium security option, which is will create more friction within the SG and with other fans. Any SG certainly can have people ejected (without giving reason), but getting them yanked and potentially arrested/banned for smoke is just going to make things much much worse.
The idea is to get those with the smoke on board, offer them something in exchange. Like a say in how this is done, policed, how communication goes with the club, what message the organized support sends the club.
Offering them "then the SG can have flags & megaphones" fails, as it
a) is a benefit for the SG, not those setting off smoke they want to convince;
b) ignores that we should already have those things. We shouldn't be asked to give in for something that the club should have arranged already on day one;
c) still makes this about the SG leader giving orders, not actually convincing people to self police.
Otherwise, you're just going to alienate a minority, they'll be angry and won't think anything the SG says is legitimate, and f**k with the SG's rules just to f**k with them.
That will really boomerang on the club. That fact needs to be explained to the club (by the SGs) as well. This can't be done by an order, but only by bringing everyone along.
juventuz
Registered
No... just, no.
franch
Registered
hahah the smug satisfied look he gets every time just kills me
If you haven't listened to Episode 24 of Blue City Radio (BlueCityRadio), you might have missed this very important fact - smoke is against NY Penal Code (§ 270.05 : NY Code - Section 270.05: Unlawfully possessing or selling noxious material)
*emphasis is my own
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/P/270/270.05
Yes, you could try and argue that it's not being used to inflict physical injury upon someone, but you're not going to have a lot of legal ground to stand on when it comes to that. Especially since it's against MLS league rules and Yankee Stadium rules. Plus, there have been accounts of people getting burned and having damage to their personal properity.
When we get our own stadium, I would imagine the only way smoke can be used without repercussion would be if the FO conducts it in a controlled manner.
Edit: credit to thesauerchise for finding the law code
*emphasis is my own
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/P/270/270.05
Yes, you could try and argue that it's not being used to inflict physical injury upon someone, but you're not going to have a lot of legal ground to stand on when it comes to that. Especially since it's against MLS league rules and Yankee Stadium rules. Plus, there have been accounts of people getting burned and having damage to their personal properity.
When we get our own stadium, I would imagine the only way smoke can be used without repercussion would be if the FO conducts it in a controlled manner.
Edit: credit to thesauerchise for finding the law code
Last edited:
jerseyhotspur
Registered
who's going to be walking behind and ringing a bell shouting SHAME . . . SHAME . . . . SHAME . . .. etc.
You're not reading the statute correctly, but you're more or less on point. First, they would have to show that you're in possession of a noxious material which is any one of the following: any container which contains any drug or other substance capable of (a) generating fumes, gases or vapors that are (1) offensive, (2) noxious or (3) suffocating, OR (b) generating fumes, gases or vapors capable of immobilizing a person. It's also not just enough to possess it. They would also have to prove that it was possessed under circumstances where it was used or intended to be used (a) to inflict physical injury upon or (b) to cause annoyance to a person, or (c) to damage property of another, or (d) to disturb the public peace.
The point of the statute was apparently to prohibit tear gas and gas bombs. I wouldn't have thought smoke was contemplated by the statute, but the language is broad enough that you could have a scenario where someone has a container of something that generated "offensive" vapors, and the fumes caused annoyance to someone. It could be... selling helium balloons to kids which they inhaled. Read the case, People v. Givenni here, and for more background, here. The judge in that case went far enough to say helium was capable of immobilizing a person (based on 10 minutes of research in an online encyclopedia, it looks like; the opinion also cites wikipedia).
But you should also know that's not the statute people were recently charged with, and it was a felony not a misdemeanor.
Edited: for clarity
