How the hell did that Tottenham fan...

[Mumsafan]

They must have some way. A friend of ours is in his fifties now and was banned from all West Ham games home and away about 20 years ago. About 5 years back he thought he'd chance it - they hauled him out the queue

[anfieldanfield]

being banned from a stadium, how hard is it for them to keep you away, i mean with 40 some thousands fans? and how do they do it

Exactly.

Imagine being banned from Old Trafford, 76,000 people at every game, you get a ticket off a mate, wear a hat, keep your head down and you would be fine, surely ?

[simey85]

lampard is fat!

[SouthAfricaRed]

i agree with Redknapp when he says that an example should be made of this idiot.

Sadly the days of Pitch invasions are like standing terraces part of History in the English game.

You just can allow it anymore. The Risk to the Safety of Players and Officials, is just too high.

The only way to minimize the risk is to enforce a strict 'No invasion' policy and have zero tolerance with offenders.

Banning offenders from watching the game live is pointless. The Message needs to be clear. It wont be tolerated.

They've already sent the wrong message by warning the Chelsea fan who also invaded the pitch. Even though he didnt attack anyone, he was wrong. You cant wait untill someone shows intent to harm someone. By that time it's too late

[SouthAfricaRed]

They must have some way. A friend of ours is in his fifties now and was banned from all West Ham games home and away about 20 years ago. About 5 years back he thought he'd chance it - they hauled him out the queue

There's some very good software available that allows for face recognition from Video. Most Casino's use it.

They can analyze 1000s of faces in seconds. So it doesnt really matter whether there are 10,000 or 100,000 people in the stadium. If they can get a partial view of your face, chances are they will pick you up

People who shouldnt be there, tend to behave suspiciously and is normally not to difficult to spot

[zimbo]

From Guardian website:

Questions of morality catch Jamie napping

Jamie Redknapp's call for the Spurs fan who attacked Frank Lampard to be imprisoned shows football is a complex moral arena.

Marina HydeMarch 22, 2007 3:02 AM

What a boon Monday night was to those of us who often find ourselves wishing Sky Sports pundit Jamie Redknapp would widen his pronouncements to the criminal justice system. Speaking of the Tottenham fan who threw a punch at his nimble cousin Frank Lampard, following Chelsea's win at White Hart Lane, Jamie was unequivocal.

"He should go to prison," he fumed.

Jamie's insistence that the pitch invasion should carry a custodial sentence reminds us that football is an infinitely complex moral arena. Clearly, there is a moral difference between the Spurs supporter's jab and - for instance - that with which Valencia's David Navarro broke Nicolas Burdisso's nose during his side's Champions League win over Internazionale, and which eventually resulted in his seven-month suspension. But I am plagued by the memory of Jamie going so far as to laugh at a replay of this latter incident. A YouTube clip of the relevant broadcast confirms this lapse in moral outrage, before showing Jamie collecting himself and declaring that Inter should be expelled from the Champions League. "Italian football ... I mean it's just Italian football full stop at the moment," he says to Richard Keys. "If there's any justice, [Inter] should be out of this competition for some time to come."

It is not for any of us to nitpick over the precise geographical location of the peripherally involved Valencia, or indeed to construct a notional model of the Redknapp family moral universe, which all things considered must be a structure of quite wondrous complexity.

But in light of events, it does seem increasingly criminal - the word can never be overused - that the sport does not have its own version of The Moral Maze. For all the lobotomising charm of You're On Sky Sports, football has now reached such heights of justifiable self-regard that it would surely make sense to provide a highbrow forum in which the moral dimensions of a big story could be debated in forensic detail by a specially assembled panel of experts.

With Keys ensconced as chairman, there is no reason to tamper with the four-person panel template of The Moral Maze, with Jamie - football's Claire Fox - snapping up the first berth. As for the journalist-thinker role, currently occupied by the Daily Mail's Melanie Phillips ... I should like to see this spot go to the peerless Sun columnist and TalkSport presenter Jon Gaunt, or Gaunty, as he prefers to be known. Whether he is dismissing five murdered Ipswich prostitutes as "villains", or comparing both Jose Mourinho and Arsène Wenger to Pontius Pilate for reasons rather beyond my limited understanding, Gaunty is a constant delight. Ruling that abortion is murder, writing of his adventures on our railways - he was recently forced to endure a train journey in which he had to fork out "a second mortgage" to buy a sandwich and a cup of tea "from a trannie - I kid you not" - Gaunty is never afraid to call on all the big issues. Except obesity. Never covers that one.

In fact, a piece by Gaunty suggests our third panellist. "It is only right," he wrote last August of my former Guardian colleague Ron Atkinson, "that Mr Bojangles should be back as a mainstream TV pundit." Having sworn repeatedly at the manager of Peterborough United and learned French with Esther Rantzen (he always did get everything the wrong way round), Ron has now completed his rehabilitation, which leaves the panel wanting only - though perhaps most crucially - a ruthless interrogator in the David Starkey mould.

And who better than FA chief executive Brian Barwick? Though we can't say for sure, the form book suggests Brian's stoic refusal to be confused by side issues would have been in evidence when he came to review the footage of Monday's incident. Clearly, even the suggestion that Didier Drogba and certain other Chelsea players might have inadvertently or otherwise applied some form of physical pressure to the supine invader was judged entirely extraneous. (Alternatively, perhaps fevered scanning of the FA's endlessly helpful rulebook once again yielded a subclause explaining why no retroactive action could be taken even had it been merited.)

And that completes our line-up. The one thing you can say about The Moral Maze is that it avoids any semblance of self-important and terminally compromised posturing from people you'd cross continents to avoid having a pint with. If the services of the above can be secured, do expect nothing less from its footballing spin-off.

[Chrono]

I'm suprised that nobody has mentioned the kicking and stamping the spurs fan got from the Chelsea team while he was on the floor. Not condoning his actions but kicking a teenage fan who is already on the floor really is pretty disgusting regardless of what he did to get there.

[anfieldanfield]

There's some very good software available that allows for face recognition from Video. Most Casino's use it.

They can analyze 1000s of faces in seconds. So it doesnt really matter whether there are 10,000 or 100,000 people in the stadium. If they can get a partial view of your face, chances are they will pick you up

People who shouldnt be there, tend to behave suspiciously and is normally not to difficult to spot

Anfield isn't that 'hi-tec' though, surely ?

I bet there are loads of fans with banning order that still go to the game every week.

[Mumsafan]

I'm suprised that nobody has mentioned the kicking and stamping the spurs fan got from the Chelsea team while he was on the floor. Not condoning his actions but kicking a teenage fan who is already on the floor really is pretty disgusting regardless of what he did to get there.

I think the FA are investigating Drogba for this

[Diego]

i agree with Redknapp when he says that an example should be made of this idiot.

Sadly the days of Pitch invasions are like standing terraces part of History in the English game.

You just can allow it anymore. The Risk to the Safety of Players and Officials, is just too high.

The only way to minimize the risk is to enforce a strict 'No invasion' policy and have zero tolerance with offenders.

Banning offenders from watching the game live is pointless. The Message needs to be clear. It wont be tolerated.

They've already sent the wrong message by warning the Chelsea fan who also invaded the pitch. Even though he didnt attack anyone, he was wrong. You cant wait untill someone shows intent to harm someone. By that time it's too late

Punishment should fit the crime. and there are so many sides to it, what if it was a 17 year old with no prior record who lost it in the heat of the moment, a good kid but pressure got to him, there a whole lot of difference between that or it it was a street thug with a criminal record the length of the phone book...

only way to stop pitch invasions is to put up a fence, you will never stop a man who's willing to go alla out on national tv and hurt someone, and to make an example out of a youngster who might just have slipped up is not the way our justice system should work. theres no justice in sacrificing...

[SouthAfricaRed]

Punishment should fit the crime. and there are so many sides to it, what if it was a 17 year old with no prior record who lost it in the heat of the moment, a good kid but pressure got to him, there a whole lot of difference between that or it it was a street thug with a criminal record the length of the phone book...

only way to stop pitch invasions is to put up a fence, you will never stop a man who's willing to go alla out on national tv and hurt someone, and to make an example out of a youngster who might just have slipped up is not the way our justice system should work. theres no justice in sacrificing...

Have you forgotten Hillsborough ?

If the Kid lost it like you seem to call it, then he obviously has lots of issues that needs dealing with. Does he need to hurt someone before he becomes a problem?

[Diego]

Have you forgotten Hillsborough ?

If the Kid lost it like you seem to call it, then he obviously has lots of issues that needs dealing with. Does he need to hurt someone before he becomes a problem?

i'm not saying fences is the way to go, don't get me wrong but it's the only to stop pitch invasion. making an example out of someone will not stop it, like death penalties don't stop in heat of the moment murders nor cold blooded. most of those who invade the pitch don't think about the consequences, more policing might be an answer...

i'm not saying he should go unpunished, not at all, you need to take the consequences of your actions. but prison for me is out of the question for it, unless he has priors or parole or something like that...

[Chrono]

Well if he is 17 (I think that is what was said) then he isn't going to prison anyway so it's not really an issue. Diego is right though, putting this guy in prison will not help.

[cobain]

Well if he is 17 (I think that is what was said) then he isn't going to prison anyway so it's not really an issue. Diego is right though, putting this guy in prison will not help.

But putting him to sleep will...

[The Glove]

We havent had fences in ages and we dont get many pitch invasions. 99% of people are not stupid and do no want to be banned from going to the game.