That is brilliantOriginally Posted by sullanefc
I like to nip out to feed my pet hamster at half time and am consistently annoyed that I can't do so
CCFC BOM, on the back of a Garda recommendation, are not allowing fans back in to Turners Cross if they leave at half time. It is suspected that the measure was recommended to stop people bringing in flares at half time where they would have been searched pre match.
Lads who like to go for a pint at HT time are annoyed all season, but also, lads bringing tired kids out to be collected at HT are not getting back in and last night it caused an adult to be separated from his kid.
Do other clubs have a HT re-admittance ban? How is it working for other clubs etc?
That is brilliant
I like to nip out to feed my pet hamster at half time and am consistently annoyed that I can't do so
Banned in the Showgs a good few years, we used to go the pub , irate peoples at the time of it's implementation.
I think in UCD it's generally free admission after half-time anyway, so the matter doesn't arise.
Not that there's really anywhere to go during the break.
Your level of IQ astounds me at times. It really does. What are you, 5?
Go back to you obsession with Bradley will you. He lost 5-2 last night you know.
I got a pint in last time I was there
There was a rugger ball thing on so loads of really dressed up folks and I had a Mexican wrestling mask on so looked like a psychopath and it was great.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
It's not generally an issue in Oriel Park with the bars in the ground. If someone needs to leave at HT or any time during the game and want to get back in a word with a steward on the gate to explain and as long as you have the ticket stubb there hasnt been an issue in my experience. Same in Inchicore too, if there isnt a mob trying to get out to the bar we were let out to the pub at HT and back in again as long as we spoke to the same steward. All depends on number I suppose and if there has been problems in the past eg smuggling flares in at HT.
Bit shocked that this was still going on I thought it was gone years. I think it should only apply to high profile games particularly since the facilities in most grounds are so awful.
Let me be a little more specific - I thought your illustration of the problem as being an adult and child getting separated was ridiculous, so I ridiculed it.
If the adult took a tired child out of the ground to be collected at half time, and could not get back in, then obviously he did not get separated from the child. On the other hand if he left the child to go out of the ground alone.................
You misinterpreted the situation and confusing a couple of examples. In this specific example, The dad went out to collect his son and bring him into the game. They are both season ticket holders. Dad was denied entry as ticket had already been scanned. Son went in as his was valid. Dad had to wait outside.
I don't think there was any misinterpretation, confusion or "a couple of examples" in what sullanefc posted - it is very different from the scenario that you have now introduced
That was an unfortunate situation but probably fairly naive of the parent. Whether it is before or during the match, it would be normal that the same ticket could not be used for multiple entry for fairly obvious reasons. It seems strange that he did not seek the assistance of a steward before leaving the ground
The original post talks about the ban in general. It references people not being able to get pints, parents not being able to bring tired kids out AND it separating a parent and child last night. The ban separating them, not bringing a tired child out. It could have been clearer, but the specific example I posted is what they're referring to. It's causing a lot of outrage and it's the reason this thread was started.
A season ticket not being able to be scanned out and scanned in again is a new thing, same with normal tickets. Hence the issue. Its only been introduced this year, on Garda recommendation. The man could well have done this plenty of times before, last season, without issue.
Last edited by micls; 02/06/2018 at 10:01 AM.
That is not true. The original post was very specific that one of the consequences of the ban was a child and adult getting separated at half time when he took a tired child out of the ground
"lads bringing tired kids out to be collected at HT are not getting back in and last night it caused an adult to be separated from his kid."
Did the scenario you raised happen before the match or at half-time? . When he could not get back in, did he tell the child to come back out, or did he opt to leave him alone inside?
Do you know did the adult involved seek assistance of a match steward before leaving the ground? If the issue was raised with a match steward before the adult left the ground, it would be poor form if he could not be looked after
If there is outrage in Cork is it because of the half-time pints impediment, the endangerment or welfare of the child last night, or the possible irresponsible behaviour of the adult?
The issue of season tickets being used and then passed out to others outside for re-use is a common scam. Additionally there are obvious safety issues with a general policy that allows tickets to be used more than once.
Last edited by Ezeikial; 02/06/2018 at 10:30 AM.
What has this got to do with the guards though? Or am I being naive?
You left out part of the sentence. The sentence is talking about the ban, the ban has caused 3 different things, which were listed. No halftime pints, parents not bringing tired kids out AND it separated a parent and child. You can continue to argue the point, but that is what the sentence meant. Yes, it could have been clearer, but that is what the intention was. You've been told that's what it meant, and that's why the thread was started, continuing to argue it is just being pedantic. It has been clarified.
It happened at halftime. Dad went out to get son. Son was 13 or 14 i think. Dad was refused re entry, son went in. Dad waited for him outside.
I doubt he spoke to a steward beforehand. As explained, this is a new rule. People who would have done this regularly before would not see any reason to speak to a steward now.
There's general outrage about the ban for different reasons. Most people are annoyed because they now can't have pints. Some are annoyed for the less common stuff, like picking up or dropping kids etc.
The outrage about this specific incident is the lack of common sense involved in the implementation of the new rule. They could have let him in and explained the new rule for the future. They've ****ed off 2 season ticket holders for the sake of a rule.
Scam? A season ticket holder leaving and giving someoneelse their ticket? So one person leaves and another comes in? Not much of a scam about that not sure it's a major issue.
What are the other general safety concerns?
Gardaí put it as a recommendation in a security report to the club, supposedly to stop flares coming in at half time. That had to be passed on to insurance. Club had to comply with recommendation or insurance price would have skyrocketed.
Pedantic? The full sentence is repeated below again and is very clear. Your subsequent version is also clear, if different
Was this not introduced several months ago?
It seems unfortunate that neither of the season tickets holders appear to be aware of this ongoing controversy from social media or Cork fans forum or have copped on to this new policy since it was introduced.
They could easily have avoided the problem
Just 1 person leaving with 5 season tickets for re-use has the potential to cost €1000 to the club over the season
It's a pretty common scam prior to scanning of tickets
The safety concerns are fairly obvious if the match is a sell out and there is resultant over-crowding in any part of the ground
Last edited by Ezeikial; 02/06/2018 at 11:30 AM.
You're being pedantic as you refuse to accept the explanation of the meaning of the first post as anything bar you way you initially read it. I have also reread it multiple times, and knowing the context it's clear what he meant. I have explained that context to you, but for some reason you seem to think that couldn't possibly have been what he meant and the first sentence couldnt possibly be read that way. Despite you acknowledging it wouldn't even make sense the way you read it. It's pedantic nonsense. It was an unclear sentence, which you interpreted differently than he intended. That was explained but you continue to go on about it. He was talking, as clarified, about that incident last night. You can argue it all you want, but that is what he was referring to. Let it go.
The rule was introduced at the start of the season. It is a shame it happened, its also a shame some common sense couldn't have been shown in the circumstances.
I don't know how common the scam you talk of is, but it hasn't been mentioned at any point as an issue, or as a reason for this decision.
In terms of your sell out scenario, that's maximum a hand full of games a year. I'm not sure what your overcrowding in any part of the ground relates to, as you can move freely around the ground at any point. Sometimes if a particular section is full, security will stop more people entering. Going out for half time doesn't impact this. Again, this wasn't mentioned as a reason at all.
Last edited by micls; 02/06/2018 at 11:41 AM.
There is a rich irony in your continued claims of pedantry - while you continue to insist that your interpretation of what he intended to say should be accepted over what we actually said. You have had the hard neck to say that I had confused " a couple of examples" and left out some of his post implying a deliberate attempt to misrepresent him. Untrue or disingenuous by you
If you don't see any issues with stadium overcrowding on the basis that it only happens for a handful of games I see no point in saying any more to you on this
There is no issue with stadium overcrowding, it has never happened to my knowledge, or never been highlighted as an issue. I'm still not sure what your concerns around it are, but they certainly haven't been raised by anyone involved in match nights at Turners Cross. It was also not given as the reason for this ban. You're literally the only person to mention it. You simply seem to be making stuff up as issues for some reason. Not saying any more sounds like a good plan, as you're ignoring the actual reason for the ban, and the understandable frustration the incident last night caused, to argue about phrasing and imaginary safety issues.
Last edited by micls; 02/06/2018 at 12:27 PM.
Ezeikal, you are being a pedant. Micls knows the context as she is on ccfcforum where it has been discussed at length for a while now. My phrasing has confused you and you won't accept any other version other than your own interpretation. So I refer you to post #5 in this thread.
Your scamming/crowd congestion arguments shows you know nothing of Turners Cross and how it operates on a match night. Now toddle off and stop hijacking another thread with your pointless arguing.
I started this thread to see if other clubs had similar restrictions as the question was asked on ccfcforum. Can we get back to that please.
From what ive read so far, Clubs with bars and sensible stewarding have no issues. Two items that are lacking in TX at the moment. As good and all as it is.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks