After I was ejected last week amongst approx a dozen or so home fans, this week it was the away fans turn to be targetted at Argyle.

I wasn't there so cannot comment personally and am awaiting membership approval for the Preston forum to find out their views.

However, the Argyle fans version of events can be found here.

The way it is going I know of three lads who are not renewing season tickets due to the very strict enforcement of the rules and more have voiced similar opinions on the internet.

About right...

Have registered and am dying to post as one or two seriously inaccurate comments there from people who really should know better.

Not renewing mine next year

If you dont I would contact the club stating your reasons.

It has even made the Lancashire Evening Post

Click Here

And now the club are defending their stewards in the Plymouth Evening Herald.

Click Here

Some of the comments on that newspaper site are ridiculous. We are really up against it with with the Hillsborough issue.

However, the Pilgrims insist they have yet to receive one complaint about their stewards' behaviour following the encounter.


That just sums it up for me

Why is it that clubs will never, ever accept there may be a problem with their stewards?

I was talking to a copper the other day who said that these stewards are little more than licenced thugs. Which most of them sadly appear to be.

That Ricard from Bristol comments below the article. Typical selfish sitter. I'm alright Jack so sod you so to speak.

No. Those blokes who stand have been watching football much longer than you. (I guess you discovered football in 1996).

I'll send something on behalf of SUSD tomorrow. Actually, the Herald contacted us a while ago as they were running a story on standing - unfortunately we didn't pick this up for a couple of days and by then it had gone.

On a point of information, the comment from club...:

"Standing in a seated area is illegal

... is factually incorrect and I'll make this point when I contact them.

standing my not be illegal but it is against the ground rules so the clubs have a right to eject people if the persist in standing. question if there is a lot of standing at the back of a stand those fans fell forward onto the row in front and then the next and so on who fault would it be for the injurys . fans for standing or the stewards for not telling them to sit down . standing areas had barriers to stop people falling forward stands do not have these that is why people are asked to sit

Even a couple of years back in certain football ground books it commented on the 14th century stewarding in the away end at Home Park. Having seen Plymouth crowd just above 10,000 (when consider the enourmous catchment area all of Cornwall and half of Devon) I wouldnt be surprised that many cant be bothered when every fan is a potential hooligan just supporting their team. Even though we probably wont be playing them for many years I can not see mysle fever going back there again (last went in 1996 when it was terraced and loved it)

Give me evidence of an incident like this happening and I will agree with you.

There is a risk I could get ruin over by a bus tomorow, doesn't mean we should ban buses.

105 comments and the vast majority of them from people with negative comments about the stewarding.


Speaks for itself, really doesn't it?

Fans have had enough. I personally know of at least 4 people not renewing due to the stewarding.

Many more on the internet have said the same.

Seriously, can you not see how ridiculous this proposed scenario is? Falling over onto someone? In 14-odd years of persistent standing in seated areas, at hundreds of grounds, it has never happened. Besides, people are allowed to stand in stadiums during concerts, when dancing and moving around considerably more than a football supporter would. Why is one practice allowed and not the other? Because, imo, making fans sit has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with discipline. The individual is easier to control than the mass; breaking people down into numbered units, it is perceived, facilitates surveillance and eliminates collective will and resistance.

First, welcome to the site!

While you are correct in saying that standing contravernes ground rules (but only when it is 'persistent' and 'whilst play is in progress'; by telling people it is illegal the club are lying. The fact remains that as a ground regulation it is upto the club whether or not they enforce this regulation - safety officers at two clubs have publicly stated that they allow people to stand in seated areas (in certain circumstances) and there is nothing stopping Plymouth doing the same.

In terms of the relative risks of passive standing in seated areas, if this is such a problem then presumably the risks of injuries occuring during goal celebrations are significantly higher, because supporters are more active at this time - ie jumping around rather than standing on the spot.

In this case, given Plymouth have recently rebuilt much of the ground, they are negligent for failing to provide barriers in the seated areas (as is common in many continental grounds) to protect people's reasonable safety.

hi - welcome to the boards. not clear from your post whether you're pro-standing or a sitter yourself but i would say don't believe the hype. While it's correct to say that standing is against ground regulations the perceived "risk" you've quoted (i say quoted because you haven't thought up that risk yourself - it's been drip fed to you by people like the FA, FLA etc.) is a myth.
The "cascade" effect you've described doesn't happen even though there are massive incidences of persistent standing all across the country every week. It also doesn't happen at other events (rugby matches, pop concerts etc.) held in the same stadia. There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that standing (something we're all pretty good at without endangering ourselves!) is unsafe. Believe me, most of the people on these forums have looked for this evidence a damn sight more thoroughly than anybody who trots out this "we need to be safe first" propaganda.
Anyway, whether you're a sitter or a stander i certainly hope you'll stick around and tell your friends to at least have a look at the site.

This domino effect theory peddled mainly by the FLA is so ludicrous that it's almost funny.

I mean think about it, once the first person - at the back row say - has fallen onto the row below the vast majority of energy and force has been delivered.

By the time the next guy - in the 2nd from back row - topples, it would be more of a stagger than a fall and at best the likely outcome would be a nudge on the row in front.

I have tried and tested this theory many a time with diving celebrations that involve lots of twisted legs and various broken seats, but certainly no sign whatsoever of a domino effect. :rolleyes:

Now the Police are defending the stewards

I find this absolutely incredible.

A local newspaper runs a story that prompts over 150 people to comment, the over whelming majority of whom are in agreement that there is a problem with the stewards at Plymouth.

A senior police officer then comes out and says there is no problem?

Absolutely bizarre. And also extremely concerning.

Completely predictable though.

There is another discussion on the Argyle Forum at the moment about standing and stewarding and someone posted this with reason why standing should not be allowed.

What would you say to this?

Surely when ground are designed they have to take into consideration that fans will be stood to celebrate a goal etc.?

He is a sad knut who needs to get out more. Seriously " rythmic human excitations" :lol: :lol: :lol:



He only said all that because he likes to sit. That is all.


Reading that forum in the link. Bloody hell mate I feel sorry for you. What a load of selfish knuts.

The guy has clearly looked it up, but then added it all together to get a bizarre outcome. If a stand can cope with people jumping up and down in time to the music, surely it can come with people jumping up and down celebrating a goal, and if it can do that, surely it can cope with people just standing up on the spot? Daftness.

As he says, "Stands therefore designed to meet certain tolerences based on their proposed use."

If a stand is specifically designed for standing spectators, it should be built in such a way that the frequency of vibration due to crowd movement does not match the fundamental frequency of the structure. In other words, it should be built to tolerate the stresses caused by standing spectators.

His argument is about why standing shouldn't be allowed in seated areas that are not designed for it. It is irrelevant to the debate about whether purpose-built standing areas should be built. Also, he mentions that standing isn't allowed in the corner seats at the Millenium Stadium, but presumably that means that it is allowed elsewhere in the ground (at concerts I mean). Therefore, by his own admission, it's just a case of identifying which stands can tolerate it.

Even the FLA have never come up with the argument that grounds designed for seating aren't safe for standing due to vibrations etc. They have said that it can be difficult to add crash barriers to areas built for sitting, but it is obvious that a stand must be able to tolerate everyone standing up, jumping, dancing etc, and with a huge degree of strength to spare, otherwise it just woudln't be safe.

Neither has anyone else. The only problems mentioned were "human discomfort and fear". As far as I understand it, it is possible that excessive vibrations could occur due to resonance, but it shouldn't cause more than mild discomfort, as the structure should be built soundly enough to easily withstand such vibration safely.