because someone is clearly going to be poking people in the eye with a flare #smh, but brain injuries are nowhere near as bad:facepalm:
Printable View
One drunk idiot with a flare is all it really takes. Look at the amount of serious injury around the world with flares. I get where they are coming from on it. The dialogue has always been around marking an area that we could *safely* do them and the rules surrounding that are extremely confusing. Pyrotechnics licence, Union affiliation and fire code all factor in. Proximity to the crowd all that.
Seems Kevin made a blcak and white statement on it. Hopefully soon Kevin will have this meeting with CNE grounds and let us know the results. Its a confusing mess right now.
^ He reportedly met with them on Thursday, at least regarding the Matt issue. No word yet on any results from the meeting.
Damn, I talked with him on the weekend but didn't bring it up.
We will see. There has been hard lobbying to help Matt and KP would not allow any representatives for Matt at the table last Thursday. That is worrisome at the least. The EX security guy is pretty hard nosed and has made some unreasonable/rediculous demands to reduce/remove the ban. That KP only wanted his side of the story at the table is a concern.
I'll sing his praises if the ban is lifted, until then....
The comparison is in some ways irrelevant. Nobody wants to take on extra risk that's avoidable and unnecessary to participate in attending a sporting event. You also can't assume that because somebody is exposed to the risk of getting hit in the head with a ball, that they would be okay with potentially being burned as well.
People have been killed in other countries by flares hitting them in the head.
It doesn't matter whether there are officially certified "safe flare" handlers, once flares are in the stands, there will be doofuses who will imitate and because they are not certified, will throw the flares to avoid getting caught. The one event that injured a woman at a match in 2009 was exactly the situation of some doofuses throwing to avoid detection. Fortunately she will only have a serious scar for life instead of being killed.
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2009/04/23/teens_charged_after_woman_burned_at_toronto_fc_gam e.html
First, I'm not knocking what happened in this article... it really shouldn't have happened.
But that's the very thing... people are going to do it regardless. Why not get everyone involved and have both sides talk about it and maybe each makes concessions... Only have some people able to handle flares, have it only in certain sections, have it monitored and let FO know it's going to happen and when... these are examples of working with them in a positive way. If you simply say no, you're not eliminating the potential problems. If it's controlled, you're not going to have people throwing it cause they're afraid of a $250 ticket.
There is a HUGE difference between the types of flairs used. A road flare burns hotter than a marine flare and is not intended to be held on to, while a marine flare produces orange or red smoke and burns much much cooler as it is intended to be held.
I'm not sure of that. It looks like the bannings have had the desired effect. Flares have pretty well disappeared, at least in the stands.
Once you have authorized flare holders, as cool as it looks, you'll get the yahoo wannabes. There are people who I'd trust to be responsible with flares, but the yahoo factor is to much of a problem and is totally uncontrollable.
A much better solution is to work out something with smoke, which actually looks cooler IMO and doesn't have nearly as much potential danger in a crowded BMO. I really like what DC United's supporters have done in that regards. We can develop our own culture and don't have to imitate what's done in other countries.
Update: I just found out the meeting last week was cancelled. No word on a replacement meeting. Which really sucks for Matt. Imagine getting banned for something you didn't do just because you dress funny and were in the neighbourhood. It could have happened to anyone...
The 'Freedom for Matt' campaign continues....
The point about flares was nailed on the first page - quoted here. You want em, start here.
Until then, it's against the fire code (does that make it against the law as well? Not sure). Regardless, go against the fire code, you will get sanctioned. It will come down hard and fast. These guys have the power to shut BMO down for infractions, and they will do it if it happens repeatedly. You think BMO/TFC will let it happen? Kiss your supporters rights and privileges goodbye if any sort of unregulated pyro starts to take hold in the stadium.
This is never a good argument for why to allow something. You could say the above, in response to virtually any law - "well, some people are going to do it anyway, so fuck it". Some people are gong to rob banks, so we should create a safe, sanctioned way to rob banks, so at least people don't get shot.
Instead of constantly talking about why to allow flares, how about turning the question over and asking: what the fuck is the obsession with having flares?
- Scott
I do want to note that I am not a fan of flares.
I think the way Portland does it is bang on, safe sanctioned section for smoke.
I do not want people lighting flares & smoke in 112 amongst a crowd.
Again though, it can be changed, I would bet that since 2007 people have likely spent the 2000hrs of work needed to change the firecode and get Pyro sanctioned just whining about it on the boards.
Out of curiosity, how many people that think Pyro is OK also think that people should be allowed to smoke cigarettes in BMO?
Seriously take the issue up with TFC and see how far it goes.
Its against the rules and yet there are still idiots bringing them in and handling them in a dangerous way, causing harm, so somehow allowing them will be okay? I don't get the logic here.
In a nutshell: there was a display outside 104 on the street to 'welcome' the Mtl fans on their first visit this year. There was smoke and flares tossed by someone else. Matt was holding up a banner (there is video and pics to prove that). Afterwards a group (not even all the same people, random people held too) was held at the supporters gate with no explanation for 10-15 minutes. They let the group in and then someone ran up to Matt and asked him to come back to the gate for questions. The police and EX security then charged him and banned him. The police dropped the charge within days but EX security wouldn't drop the ban despite meetings and visual evidence showing that he did nothing but hold up a tifo. It seems he was picked at random because they needed to 'get' someone and couldn't figure out who really did it.
How this was different from the post match celebrations by gate 3 that have happened dozens of times is beyond me. In fact, there were flares HELD by people after that match at the gate 3 celebration and none of them were arrested.
^ that's really unfair. I hope he gets the ban reversed. Common sense should prevail over some sort of misguided "get someone" punishment.
naw it was my mistake. I was thinking of a different incident.
The one I was thinking was the incident of those 2 guys in 111 who lit up a flare and eventually threw it. One of them on the field and another I think landed on 113. They were relatively young guys I believe.