The Hemel incident.

Nobody has mentioned this on the forum and i presume some have seen the very short announcement on the club website.

Here's the club statement,


An internal investigation into the incident at the end of the home game against Hemel Hempstead Town on Saturday 22nd February has been completed.

The culprit has been identified and has been banned from attending football matches at The War Memorial Athletic Ground for a period of six months with immediate effect.




I'm glad this has been sorted and hopefully this has nipped such incident's in the bud.

So really it's a tad over a two month ban effectively?

Also.
You enter the field of play for whatever reason and you get a lifetime ban but you throw beer on an official and it's just a six month ban?

"We can't go on together with suspicious minds"

Glad someone else has commented on this. The punishment is utterly ridiculous. What happens if we're away in the Play Offs for example? Would they still be able to go then? I think it's right that the club have done something about it but the punishment isn't anywhere near the right amount of time, for me. Especially as Tricky says, there's only a certain amount of games left.

Have to agree that a six months ban is lenient.

In my thread 'Discipline - on and off the field', I did say ''There's a very strong case for banning them (those involved) for life.

I stand by this.

We might all think that the ban is lenient, but at least the club have actually done something about it. They could have ignored the entire incident in the hope that it just went away.

And it amazes me how a referee can upset so many people, to the point that one of them does something stupid. Just proves how useless he really was  

sirsmilerIII wrote:We might all think that the ban is lenient, but at least the club have actually done something about it.  They could have ignored the entire incident in the hope that it just went away.

And it amazes me how a referee can upset so many people, to the point that one of them does something stupid.  Just proves how useless he really was  

Utter rubbish smiler,it's a cop out of a punishment and we all know why.
The club only acted because they were forced into it.
Some of the comments from certain people after the incident were laughable to say the least.

Tricky Tree wrote:

sirsmilerIII wrote:We might all think that the ban is lenient, but at least the club have actually done something about it.  They could have ignored the entire incident in the hope that it just went away.

And it amazes me how a referee can upset so many people, to the point that one of them does something stupid.  Just proves how useless he really was  

Utter rubbish smiler,it's a cop out of a punishment and we all know why.
The club only acted because they were forced into it.
Some of the comments from certain people after the incident were laughable to say the least.

Yes the punishment is a cop out. And the obvious question is if that person returns in 6 months time and does the same thing again, would they just get another 6 month ban.

I would assume the punishment is lenient (if you think it is) for a first offence. I would hope a repeat would merit a much longer ban.

I think the club have got it about right. Done something before the FA have come down on us. No doubt there will be some kind of official investigation - I believe the ref included it in his report (quite rightly, really).

TRM wrote:I would assume the punishment is lenient (if you think it is) for a first offence. I would hope a repeat would merit a much longer ban.

I think the club have got it about right. Done something before the FA have come down on us. No doubt there will be some kind of official investigation - I believe the ref included it in his report (quite rightly, really).

If,as strongly rumoured,it's a player's family member responsible then in my opinion the punishment is too weak.

Many of us know know what was said to Jane and the manner in which it was said,to say it was "threatening behaviour" hardly does it justice.

If "plod" had witnessed it then an arrest and a charge would have been the likely outcome.

We are paying stewards around £25 each per match,from what i hear a couple of stewards saw what was going on but did nothing.

IF people are going to put themselves forward to take a steward's position they have to accept the responsibility and sometimes the danger that comes with that position.

99% of the time it'll be the easiest £25 you'll ever earn but maybe once a season you'll need to step in and protect someone.

I know a lot of people who witnessed the incident with Jane who couldn't praise Smiler highly enough for the way he protected Jane,himself in the face of great personal risk,well done Smiler.

Personally i think a ban taking in this season and all of next should've been the minimum.

TRM.....do you seriously believe a six month ban is sufficient for what happened when you can get a lifetime ban for running on the pitch in the excitement of a goal?
Come on Rich stop being so bloody liberal and get back to your normal sensible posts.
The club have most definitely not got it right and have bottled it totally.

I must confess I was only taking into account the "beer over ref" aspect of the incident. I hadn't taken into account what also went on with Jane. Still difficult to comment properly when I've only heard and read about it second-hand.

I would hope there has been a thorough debrief with the stewards, as there should be with any sort of incident, even if it has been well dealt with.

EDIT - just read TT's post. Foaming at the mouth at being called "liberal".

TRM wrote:I must confess I was only taking into account the "beer over ref" aspect of the incident. I hadn't taken into account what also went on with Jane. Still difficult to comment properly when I've only heard and read about it second-hand.

I would hope there has been a thorough debrief with the stewards, as there should be with any sort of incident, even if it has been well dealt with.

I spoke first hand with Jane at Banbury and know the story "verbatim" and heard it verified by other's.

The people responsible for threatening her in such a vile way are a disgrace,my personal view is that this ban is all about the beer incident and Jane's "incident" has been ignored.

The post on the club website hardly bring's clarity to the situation.

I think a proper investigation should be done by the club into the whole thing,there were enough witnesses to it from all accounts.

Devil's Advocate wrote:
We are paying stewards around £25 each per match

I'd just like to point out that not all stewards are paid that. Some of us are still doing this on a volunteer basis.

I presume that fee applies to the ones we've imported from professional clubs.

I feel that the punishment is very light.
The referee was at best totally inept and at worst I will decline from saying.
I think that referees in general do a decent job and get more criticism than they deserve and for that reason I don't give them to much. However, even I had apretty offensive outburst at that guy.
Shouting abuse and physically assaulting a ref (and surely it would be classed as that) I'd unacceptable. I don't know what was said to Jane do would not comment but again it sounds as though it would be taken seriously in the eyes of the law.

Seems to me that most posters are not impressed with said culprits and their punishment by the club. I'm not a member though intend to join next season. I seem to remember seeing it written in a post on here or it maybe that i read it in the articles of my cricket club but is my understanding that 10 members raising a request for an EGM is binding.
Any thoughts on whether there is sufficient feeling from the members that the club punishment is light enough to merit it being taken to an EGM to petition the club for stronger action? If the club didn't take sufficient action in the eyes of the FA wouldn't the FA take an heavier hand with the club?

Just the thoughts of a man who was knocked out of his poker tournament earlier and had to sit alone watching a bad Elvis tribute act whilst waiting for his father to get knocked out.

Do that in the Premier League and you'd get a lengthy ground ban, plus a banning order and very likely go to prison. What is in effect a two month ban is no more than a slap on the wrist for what seems to be a serious incident.

I know Wolfie(Jane) will be absolutely hating every minute that this incident drags on for but I do need to comment again.
I'm absolutely no angel when it comes to dishing out abuse to officials and opposition players(Leamington away in the league last season proves that point)and if I hadn't got my two young children with me I'd have been right at the fence spouting my bile. Had a thrown anything at all at an official (apart from abuse) I'd have expected a lengthy ban and would have been cock a hoop at a poxy six month (effectively just over a two month)ban.
Wolfie is my sister and I know full well what was said to her and it most certainly isn't suitable for on this site but I can pretty much assure you that had I heard it then I most definitely wouldn't have been restrained as Smiler.
A six month ban for throwing something at an official is a joke and an absolute cop out.
Not investigating what was said to wolfie is a total cop out.
I wonder if it has anything to do with a Stourbridge official and his response to wolfie when she complained directly to him.
When something like this happens the club should publish a full account of their investigation and conclude how they reached their verdict.
The ridiculous little article on the website certainly smacks of trying to brush this incident under the carpet.
Not good enough I'm afraid Stour,not good enough at all.

Rant over,sorry Wolfie.

Also....TRM.
Regarding you foaming at the mouth I suggest you get yourself to the vets Sir.

Agree with what's been said already, the ban is not enough, it should be six "playing" months at the very least and the more serious part of the incident has been seemingly brushed under the carpet.

Unfortunately as a cynical person (too long working for a local authority), I view the light punishment and it being alleged it's a player's relative as not a coincidence.