Spectator Viewing Arrangements

[brisfitboy]

From what I can recall there is more danger to the players with the fence, especially goal ends.

[sallycat]

Jul 9, 2018 8:30:20 GMT mca said:

Fair play to you for trying to put across an understanding of the thought process behind a decision like this, hope you don't feel like you're being backed Into a corner. I'm really fed up with this though. I'm sure there's loads of tweaks that go on without us realising on H&S grounds, I think the difference here is that it will have a massive impact on the way, kids especially, enjoy the game. I almost feel like we've got the wrong end of the stick and someone will say "of course kids can still go pitchside, we didn't mean that". I'd be less annoyed if we were told we wouldnt be allowed in without hats to avoid possible sunburn.

Not at all, it's OK! Yeah, I'm annoyed by it too although I'm trying not to be because for all I know there might be a really good reason for it.

Your tongue-in-cheek example of sunhats made me chuckle but actually it illustrates an important distinction. If you fail to protect yourself against the sun, you and only you are in danger. But if you are injured or cause other people to be injured as a result of (for example) leaning on a fence that isn't designed to be leant on, then not only could other people be hurt but also the club is legally responsible if they haven't done all that can be reasonably expected of them to stop you doing the unsafe thing.

I'm not saying our fence isn't safe to lean on, by the way. It's just an example.

Aside from possible lawsuits, it is the legal and moral duty of the club, the SGSA and the council (since they own the ground) to keep those who use it as safe as possible.

Whether they go too far in doing so is a moot point.

[markf]

As has been said elsewhere in this thread, the fence has already been tested (the GGL end was five deep at the fence in some places v Arsenal) on a number of occasions and I don't recall it buckling then.

It would appear though that a scientific calculation is preferred over physical evidence by the powers that be. Another apparent issue is the blocking of walkways. The park side gap between fence and terrace is wider than my road and my road has cars driving along it.

I repeat, it's all bollocks.

[sallycat]

Jul 8, 2018 20:52:49 GMT Del said:

The fact that Dave suggested he had one little victory gives me the impression that its the HSE at the London Borough of Sutton who have been making these rules and maybe complaints should be directed at them.
What actually astounds me about all this is the fact that we recently played Arsenal with no problems in front of a full house and what was good on that evening isn't good now !

Forgot to reply to your post earlier Delboy - was going to because I thought it was a good point. Very likely the answer is that the requirements have been updated in response to recent incidents and/or new research. Health and safety requirements get updated all the time because of that.

[mca]

Jul 9, 2018 11:42:43 GMT sallycat said:

Jul 9, 2018 8:30:20 GMT mca said:

Fair play to you for trying to put across an understanding of the thought process behind a decision like this, hope you don't feel like you're being backed Into a corner. I'm really fed up with this though. I'm sure there's loads of tweaks that go on without us realising on H&S grounds, I think the difference here is that it will have a massive impact on the way, kids especially, enjoy the game. I almost feel like we've got the wrong end of the stick and someone will say "of course kids can still go pitchside, we didn't mean that". I'd be less annoyed if we were told we wouldnt be allowed in without hats to avoid possible sunburn.

Not at all, it's OK! Yeah, I'm annoyed by it too although I'm trying not to be because for all I know there might be a really good reason for it.

Your tongue-in-cheek example of sunhats made me chuckle but actually it illustrates an important distinction. If you fail to protect yourself against the sun, you and only you are in danger. But if you are injured or cause other people to be injured as a result of (for example) leaning on a fence that isn't designed to be leant on, then not only could other people be hurt but also the club is legally responsible if they haven't done all that can be reasonably expected of them to stop you doing the unsafe thing.

I'm not saying our fence isn't safe to lean on, by the way. It's just an example.

Aside from possible lawsuits, it is the legal and moral duty of the club, the SGSA and the council (since they own the ground) to keep those who use it as safe as possible.

Whether they go too far in doing so is a moot point.

There's no way the fence hasn't passed a safety inspection though is there? And if it hasn't then the club would have to get one that does. But now we can't stand near it? The only danger I can see by standing pitchside is getting a ball in the chops from a wayward shot(obvs not any Sutton player). Not alot else to say unless someone has actual facts as to what's going on, but I know the kids I take will be gutted, and I can't explain why they're not allowed to go down the front anymore.

[sallycat]

Yeah, I'd be very surprised if the robustness of the fence was the issue here. Think it's more likely to be something else.

Jul 9, 2018 11:50:55 GMT markf said:

As has been said elsewhere in this thread, the fence has already been tested (the GGL end was five deep at the fence in some places v Arsenal) on a number of occasions and I don't recall it buckling then.

It would appear though that a scientific calculation is preferred over physical evidence by the powers that be. Another apparent issue is the blocking of walkways. The park side gap between fence and terrace is wider than my road and my road has cars driving along it.

I repeat, it's all bollocks.

Is that what they said? That the problem is the danger of the fence buckling? It doesn't seem likely, does it, but there is of course the possibility that the physical evidence came from a similar barrier in a different ground. I'm not trying to defend this decision, just to understand it.

As for blocking walkways I guess it's not about its width, it's about where you draw the line. Which, perhaps, could be done literally so as to come to some sort of compromise? Otherwise, it's either OK to stand there and risk having a car's width sized crowd blocking it, or it isn't ok to stand there. I really don't see why painting lines wouldn't be an easyish solution, mind.

[markf]

Why else would there be a ban from standing up against it? It's about the fence and the pressure it can take in terms of weight and I presume force.

Bearing in mind, generally it is occupied by singletons and not people massed up behind the person at the front, then tell me, other than the bigger matches (see my above post), when the fence is going to be under enough stress to collapse?

It's all bollocks.

[sallycat]

We're on the same side here mate

To answer your first question though, it may be more about how much pressure and force the people standing at the front (several of whom as we've established would be children) can take before THEY collapse!

As you say, it would only be an issue at big games but again you have the problem of where to draw the line and you couldn't easily have different rules for big games because it would cause too much confusion.

All speculation of course. I'm not arguing with any of what you said there.

[markf]

Like all the kids who were standing at the fence for the visits of Arsenal, Leeds, AFCW etc?

I'm not arguing with you.

It's all bollocks.

[davef]

Just to clarify, the issue is simply around the perceived strength and appropriateness of the fence. The exact same type of fence has collapsed elsewhere under crowd pressure and, one way or another, we need to demonstrate that risks are eliminated or controlled to the satisfaction of the safety authorities.

[mca]

Jul 9, 2018 12:29:09 GMT davef said:

Just to clarify, the issue is simply around the perceived strength and appropriateness of the fence. The exact same type of fence has collapsed elsewhere under crowd pressure and, one way or another, we need to demonstrate that risks are eliminated or controlled to the satisfaction of the safety authorities.

And if they can do that we carry on as before? I'd have thought a fence would have to able to collapse under too much pressure otherwise you have the issue of people being crushed. A goldilocks fence, not too strong but not too weak. Juuuuuust right

[davef]

Yes. Until we get until the EFL, when standing on level ground is not permitted at all.

[mca]

Jul 9, 2018 12:47:59 GMT davef said:

Yes. Until we get until the EFL, when standing on level ground is not permitted at all.

That gives me hope. If we get promoted just get the fella who did my neighbours drive to concrete over the area between fence and terrace, that's the least level place I've ever seen

[sallycat]

Thanks for clarifying, Dave. Thought it might be based on incidents elsewhere.

[markf]

Someone had an accident in a car the other day. People still drive though.

It's bollocks