11/21/24
October 31, 2005
Brett Favre turns one over ... to a fan: Cincy fan Greg Gill came out of the stands Sunday and ended up rumbling, bumbling, stumbling about 50 yards before getting drilled into the turf. Now there are questions about the security at Paul Brown Stadium. Ya think?
That's no fan.
posted by chicobangs at 04:49 PM on October 31, 2005
The first football game I ever went to was a Raiders/Patriots preseason game about 10 years ago. At the time Pat Swilling was playing with the Raiders. They were in the defensive huddle when a fan ran onto the field. Swilling came out from the huddle, took 5 or 6 hard steps and leveled the guy. I think it was great, but I'm pretty sure the NFL would prefer to see security get these idiots first.
posted by bigrobbieb at 05:20 PM on October 31, 2005
Hasn't anyone else seen the video of some dude doing this at a Bears game back in the day and Mike Ditka, as a player, just annihilates the guy. Like sends him flying through the air to land in the crumpled heap. Honestly, drunk morons who do this pretty well deserve what they get. And in the baseball season, didn't Eric Byrnes tackle some fan on the field?
posted by fenriq at 05:25 PM on October 31, 2005
I've heard of living up to your name, but that Greg sure is full of Gall...and possibly Jack Daniels.
posted by bigrobbieb at 05:26 PM on October 31, 2005
Some girl ran onto a court one game to hug Wally Sczerbiak.
posted by charlatan at 05:28 PM on October 31, 2005
Would a player get fifteen yards for clotheslining a drunken idiotic "fan" who runs onto the field and disrupts the game? I hope somebody beats the crap out of this fool.
posted by alumshubby at 06:47 PM on October 31, 2005
A player would get a free bar tab later that evening, I suspect.
posted by chicobangs at 06:57 PM on October 31, 2005
I'll pitch in for soap on a rope for that idiot if he got put away.
posted by Richard j Garcia at 07:32 PM on October 31, 2005
I agree with letting the linebackers having at him. If you step out on the field then you better be ready to play ball with the big boys.
posted by Doc at 08:40 PM on October 31, 2005
That 'play' by the fan provided a crucial momentum shift. The Packers had just advanced upfield from a bullshit pass-interference call and the Bengals were playing stunned and looked like they were panicking, letting the Packers march downfield. From the AP story of the game: "The man grabbed the ball out of Favre's hand and eluded security, which needed several minutes to tackle and arrest him. ``That did slow it down and give us a chance to huddle, and we kind of came together as a defense,'' linebacker Brian Simmons said. ``But you don't want to see that because somebody could get hurt.'' Favre was sacked on the next play, and was under heavy pressure as he threw his last pass from beyond the line of scrimmage, an illegal completion that came up short, anyway. Was it wrong? Yes. Did it help the Bengals win the game? Probably. Will Cincy fans be mad at this guy? No.
posted by insomnyuk at 09:31 PM on October 31, 2005
Next time this happens, a couple linebackers ought to take off after the guy and clean his clock...they put him in the hospital for a week, and this won't happen again. Honestly, drunk morons who do this pretty well deserve what they get. I agree with letting the linebackers having at him. I hope somebody beats the crap out of this fool. Yes, because interfering in a sporting event means you should be beaten and crippled. So, if a person jumps up on the stage during a rock concert, the lead guitarist should be allowed to smash his guitar over the intruder's head, and the drummer can poke out the intruder's eyes with his sticks? A little perspective, people.
posted by grum@work at 10:07 PM on October 31, 2005
And, from the "dubious-at-best" department, the fan (who was caught on tape, broadcast to parts of middle America, and instantly became a part of about 250,000 TiVos), pleads innocent.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 10:21 PM on October 31, 2005
That's OK, because T$PORT4lawschool is his defence attorney.
posted by owlhouse at 11:02 PM on October 31, 2005
...which means he'll get the chair.
posted by chicobangs at 12:56 AM on November 01, 2005
Reminds me of when my (much older) cousin appeared as a Career Day speaker at my school to talk about being a lawyer. When I got home, I asked my mom, "If I ever got in trouble, would I say he was my lawyer?" Her response: "Only if you want to be led out in ankle chains."
posted by yerfatma at 06:17 AM on November 01, 2005
I'm surprised no one's mentioned Mike "The Animal" Curtis. Meanwhile, is it wrong to wish harm on these types? Perhaps. Is it satisfying to see them get what most people here think they deserve? Absolutely.
posted by ajaffe at 07:33 AM on November 01, 2005
I thought it was kinda funny...
posted by bugsyduke at 08:22 AM on November 01, 2005
I watched the game, and they only showed the part where he grabbed the ball. I had the radio on and they gave a play-by-play. I wish they would show that kind of stuff live on tv.
posted by AJ_in_BN at 09:22 AM on November 01, 2005
They don't specifically so the behaviour will not be encouraged by granting infamy to drunk small-dicked losers everywhere. Still - it is pretty funny when the guy actually goes and gets the ball. Did he say anything to Favre? Something like - "I'll save us all the time and trouble and just return this to the Cinci end-zone. You know it's just going to end up there if you keep it."
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:47 AM on November 01, 2005
I wish they would show that kind of stuff live on tv. Why? So that morons like that would get their 15 minutes of fame? He's had enough attention, and attention is what encourages jackasses like him.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:47 AM on November 01, 2005
I think it might have been helpful to see him getting pounded into the turf by two or three security guards. It could cause pause in others thinking about making the leap down to the field. Yes, because interfering in a sporting event means you should be beaten and crippled. So, if a person jumps up on the stage during a rock concert, the lead guitarist should be allowed to smash his guitar over the intruder's head, and the drummer can poke out the intruder's eyes with his sticks? Actually, yes, they should. It's very clear when you are supposed to be at a rock concert or sporting event, and the stage or the field ain't it. Who knows what a guy drunk/crazy enough to run onto a field might do? Why wait around and find out?
posted by wfrazerjr at 10:09 AM on November 01, 2005
the drummer can poke out the intruder's eyes with his sticks? Well, if it's the Angry Samoans' drummer...
posted by qbert72 at 10:14 AM on November 01, 2005
Ever hear of Pantera ? If someone had hit the guy with a guitar Maybe there would not have been a shooting death.So yea if somebody disrupts a event like that ;assume the worst and take them out NOW .Next time a crazy person might do worse then take the ball.
posted by justbear at 10:31 AM on November 01, 2005
Next time a crazy person might do worse then take the ball. And next time a drunk person might just want to get attention by being on the field, but instead gets his neck broken by an overzealous lineman. Call me silly, but unless the interloper actually makes a threatening move towards another person on the field (like when the two fans made a run at the first base coach a couple years ago, or that nutbar in Buffalo picked a fight with the entire Sabres bench), I don't think crippling violence is an acceptable response to fan interference. I used to feel that "whatever happens on the field is what they deserve", but I realized that just leads to an acceptance of excessive violence in general.
posted by grum@work at 10:44 AM on November 01, 2005
The guy got his clock cleaned, now he'll go to court, get convicted, get 30 days suspended and a healthy fine. He also gets to be known as "that asshole" from the football game. Bless his heart, lmao!
posted by Sasquatch12154 at 11:04 AM on November 01, 2005
One way to prevent the fans acting crazy and the violence that can occur as a result is to HAVE SOME SECURITY! Why was he able to get on the field in the first place?
posted by bperk at 11:12 AM on November 01, 2005
unless the interloper actually makes a threatening move In this age of suicide bombers, I'd say that running towards a group of people in a public venue where such behavior is extraordinary constitutes a threatening move.
posted by joaquim at 11:15 AM on November 01, 2005
I'm so very worried about suicide bombers at a football game. Especially on the field.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:37 AM on November 01, 2005
Nice going, qbert! You can't have enough Angry Samoans references! Obviously, this guy wasn't using the right side of his brain...
posted by ajaffe at 11:45 AM on November 01, 2005
They should do like they do in the NHL (or like they threaten to do in the NHL). When this kind of fan-disruption happens, the home team gets a penalty. Of course, if it's a fan of the away team...
posted by fabulon7 at 12:00 PM on November 01, 2005
The guy got his clock cleaned, now he'll go to court, get convicted, get 30 days suspended and a healthy fine. Then, he will probably sue the NFL, the stadium, the security guards, etc.; get a book or movie deal; make the talk show rounds; and on and on.
posted by graymatters at 12:02 PM on November 01, 2005
I think a 15 yd unsprotsmanlike is just what the docotor ordered in this case. Yes, I know, some will say, "but what about the visiting fans"....well, it's still the home team's security team keeping them off. So the visitors' don't have anything to do with it anyway. The fact of the matter is, the field of play belongs to the players, the stands belong to the fans. Keep them out of each others way and where they belong and all will be right in the world, unless your last name is Bartman.....
posted by elovrich at 12:28 PM on November 01, 2005
qbert72: Well, if it's the Angry Samoans' drummer... *wipes tear* Thanks for that. Seeing the Anrgy Samoans referenced on SpoFi is one of the best things that has happened today.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:40 PM on November 01, 2005
I'm so very worried about suicide bombers at a football game. Especially on the field. Yeah, I remember George Carlin feeling the same way about airport security. Boy, he was dead-on, huh?
posted by wfrazerjr at 12:55 PM on November 01, 2005
Well, aside from the fact that someone with a double-digit IQ rooting through bags wouldn't have stopped 9/11, there is a point here. I'm not a fan of vigilante justice, but it's less practical to ring the field with security guards than it would be to have one lineman extract a Stupid Tax on the next nomadic knucklehead stupid enough to try this. Any media backlash could be intercut with footage of the Ligues attacking that coach, and you'll see the number of drunks wandering on the field will slow to practically zero. Problem solved.
posted by chicobangs at 01:05 PM on November 01, 2005
wfrazerjr, if you want to see suicide bombers under your bed, feel free -- but tell me why you think that a suicide bomber would a)choose a football stadium as the best target he could think of -- none better -- and b)having decided that, run out onto the field and away from the crowd to detonate the bomb.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:07 PM on November 01, 2005
You could also include footage of Monica Seles lying on the tennis court after being stabbed if you wanted to drive the point home.
posted by chicobangs at 01:07 PM on November 01, 2005
I say let the players deal with it. If someone gets on the field....take him out. He has no pads and he's drunk. Imagine what these guys could do to him. No fan would ever do it again. It would be like entering a hungry tigars den
posted by SDM at 01:19 PM on November 01, 2005
Will Cincy fans be mad at this guy? No. Yes actually. This guy is being roasted alive on sports radio here
posted by mick at 01:26 PM on November 01, 2005
I'm not altogether against the idea of, "Let the players deal with it," but I have a few points: 1. The players shouldn't have to. It's not their job. They're supposed to be able to play the game, not watch their backs. 2. Who's gonna back the players up if they "deal with it"? We're talking about assault here. Do you really think any team is gonna put fine print amounting to, "...and if you venture onto the playing surface, any or all of our fine young athletes may whale the tar outta you" on its tickets? Do you think such a disclaimer would hold in a court of law? Players don't stay away from yahoos like that because they're physically afraid of 'em, they stay away because they have a legitimate concern that it'll buy them trouble. Look at Gary Sheffield and the hand-swiping beer-throwing drunks: if he had done more than shove the guy back, what kind of trouble would it have bought him? 3. You do need to consider the reasons why someone would be on the field. Suicide bombers? Sorry, but I really don't think so -- it's not quite a match with a suicide bomber's main objective. But nutters on the field could include anything from "jackass wanting to be on tee vee" to "nut with a grudge" who's pissed off about a play to "stalker". Different motives, different objectives, likely different optimal responses...no? Anyway, if you were to take a poll of the players, I bet the consensus would sound somethng like, "I don't wanna deal with it, I don't wanna see it."
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:40 PM on November 01, 2005
tell me why you think that a suicide bomber would a)choose a football stadium as the best target he could think of -- none better -- and b) having decided that, run out onto the field and away from the crowd to detonate the bomb. So, you're ascribing blinding logic and intelligence to suicide bombers? That's why the bombing would have to be at the most intelligent choice in your eyes? Because if I'd wanted throw a scare into the American public, I would have flown a plane into Yankee Stadium during a nationally televised game, and a stadium crowded with fans (say 100,000 of them at the University of Michigan or Notre Dame) would trample itself trying to get out. Even a bomb set off in the stands wouldn't kill as many as the panicked masses running over one another. Oddly enough, there's a bunch of people out there who think that might have been exactly what Joel Hinrichs III was planning, but was denied access to the game.
posted by wfrazerjr at 01:45 PM on November 01, 2005
and this won't happen again. It could cause pause in others thinking about making the leap down to the field and you'll see the number of drunks wandering on the field will slow to practically zero. No fan would ever do it again. Nothing will stop idiots..... nothing.
posted by tron7 at 02:05 PM on November 01, 2005
So, you're ascribing blinding logic and intelligence to suicide bombers? C'mon, wfrazerjr, you know better than that. You don't have to be sane to be logical, intelligent, or a very good and patient planner -- as the 9/11 suicide bombers and the people behind them proved. What does a suicide bomber want? To do the most possible damage: deaths, infrastructure destroyed, striking fear into the hearts, etc. It's not the kind of attack that can be successfully set up and carried out on a whim: it takes a lot of planning, and, gosh, a certain amount of dedication, and the person doing it is going to want to do maximum damage. If that's their goal, there are better places than a football stadium, no matter how crowded it is, and there are certainly better places in the football stadium than in the middle of the field. Consider also the nature of the device. If it's conventional explosives, a running person can't carry enough in a sprint to midfield to harm many people; if it's nuclear, chemical or biological, there's no reason to go to midfield, or reveal yourself or call attention to yourself in any other way, and risk being thwarted. You're just gonna set it off.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:10 PM on November 01, 2005
If a guy comes into my office building I can justifiably beat the crap out of him, right? I mean if he's crazy enough to run in here he's crazy enough to do anything. Heck it might even be a suicide bomber. My point is why do they get a different set of rules then everyone else? Because it's a big stage and lot's of people are there? Go ahead and defend yourself but ripping a guys head off is never called for.
posted by tron7 at 02:30 PM on November 01, 2005
And in the baseball season, didn't Eric Byrnes tackle some fan on the field? iirc, he pulled the guy down off of the outfield wall. and i believe afterwards he was told that he shouldn't have gotten involved and to let security handle it. if a guy is just running around the field or bases, i guess i would say to let security handle it. if he's running towards a player/coach/official, i have no problem with a player stepping in to diffuse the situation (which does not mean beating a guy's skull in).
posted by goddam at 02:41 PM on November 01, 2005
If it's conventional explosives, a running person can't carry enough in a sprint to midfield to harm many people Which is exactly why I said what I said above. Going to the middle of the field and blowing himself up (and quite possibly grabbing a player or two) would create huge panic and cause a large number of trampling deaths in the stands. Hinrichs did plenty enough damage to himself carrying only a backpack. And if the goal is striking fear and causing damage, again, I don't know what would cause more widespread panic than blowing something up on national television. I mean, if you can do that during an NFL game, imagine what else those terrorists could do, you know?
posted by wfrazerjr at 02:50 PM on November 01, 2005
Going to the middle of the field and blowing himself up (and quite possibly grabbing a player or two) would create huge panic and cause a large number of trampling deaths in the stands. Sheerest speculation, wfrazerjr, that situation has never happened. Hell, this is football, most people would probably think it was the halftime show. And if the goal is striking fear and causing damage, again, I don't know what would cause more widespread panic than blowing something up on national television. I mean, if you can do that during an NFL game, imagine what else those terrorists could do, you know? wfjr, you've been seeing too many movies. Really. I know that the NFL is supposed to be our most sacred icon, but if, as you say, an NFL game is the pinnacle of the sacred and unimpeachable, why didn't the 9/11 bombers fly on a Sunday and hit four stadiums instead? That surely would have sent us all into a much greater panic than the WTC and the Pentagon, right?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:05 PM on November 01, 2005
If it's conventional explosives, a running person can't carry enough in a sprint to midfield to harm many people You obviously don't know anything about explosives. Half a pound could kill several people. For added fun, attach a few dozen BBs with Krazy Glue and create your very own Claymore antipersonnel mine. If I were going to pull off some kind of suicide-bombing stunt, it'd make quite a statement to run out to where the players are and set off a vestful of Semtex. I guarantee there'd be absolulte pandemonium in the stands.
posted by alumshubby at 03:10 PM on November 01, 2005
Okay, this conversation is spinning into hysteria and straw-mania all over the place. No one's advocating this asshole gets lined up against a wall, and can we leave terrorism out of this? (A drunken idiot looking for a few seconds' fame on SportsCenter and a fanatic with a backpack full of explosives are two radically different things, and the latter is a whole different conversation that has nothing to do with this knucklehead.) You want to stop the drunken idiots going on the field? Logic won't get to them, but the image of an armored 300-pound thoroughbred knocking the wind out of one of their own will slow the flow of idiots looking for 15 seconds of fame. Terrorists are a whole nother thing, requiring a different set of security measures and viewpoints, and don't belong in this conversation at all. Don't give this knucklehead that kind of credit.
posted by chicobangs at 03:32 PM on November 01, 2005
Sheerest speculation, wfrazerjr, that situation has never happened. Hell, this is football, most people would probably think it was the halftime show. Forgive me for speculating. I'm sure you weren't doing that when you presumed seeing several people explode in the middle of the field might not upset folks in the stands. They're all drunk and stupid enough to think it's the halftime show, I agree. I know that the NFL is supposed to be our most sacred icon, but if, as you say, an NFL game is the pinnacle of the sacred and unimpeachable, why didn't the 9/11 bombers fly on a Sunday and hit four stadiums instead? That surely would have sent us all into a much greater panic than the WTC and the Pentagon, right? I don't know, lbb, but just like you, I have no idea why they chose the targets they did. I suspect for maximum damage and psychological effect -- which would be exactly the same reasons to attack a sporting event with a large number of fans and a television audience. If you'd like to name a few other targets where more people could be injured and the whole thing would absolutely be filmed and perhaps even be televised live to a national audience, go right ahead. It has nothing to do with movies. It's common sense. Chico, I don't think these things are radically different at all, and here's why -- can you quickly identify and separate the two if they are running out onto the field? Will the bomber be wearing, I dunno, a bomber jacket or "I Blew Up The Meadowlands And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt" apparel? No, Gall doing a strip job on Favre wasn't anything big ... other than to point out that sideline security is amazing lax in one place ... and maybe it should be looked at in most major venues.
posted by wfrazerjr at 04:20 PM on November 01, 2005
Logic won't get to them, but the image of an armored 300-pound thoroughbred knocking the wind out of one of their own will slow the flow of idiots looking for 15 seconds of fame. Nothing I tell you, not even your little war horsies, will stop them. I'm sure in there eyes the 15 seconds would be worth the pain. What's cooler than being on TV? Getting leveled by a player on TV.
posted by tron7 at 04:22 PM on November 01, 2005
Your right frazer. We should probably frisk all the players too i mean who's in a better position then the players to detonate a bomb. They could hide all sorts of bombs under there pads and perhaps a low yield nuclear device in there jock straps.
posted by tron7 at 04:31 PM on November 01, 2005
Thanks for an incredibly stupid interpretation of my comments, Tron7.
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:32 PM on November 01, 2005
will someone please think of the children!
posted by JohnSFO at 06:44 PM on November 01, 2005
Not after Megan's Law got enacted.
posted by yerfatma at 07:13 PM on November 01, 2005
That may be the darkest joke ever posted on SportsFilter.
posted by rcade at 08:27 PM on November 01, 2005
Yeah, but it was a good one. Keep those thoughts clean and legal!
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:04 PM on November 01, 2005
Go back to sleep America, your government is taking care of everything.
posted by yerfatma at 06:16 AM on November 02, 2005
Talk about paranoia. Drunk guy runs on to the field and you gang are debating the finer points of suicide bombing theory vis a vis televised games? Holy shit. Relax. Take a deep breath. There are many, many better targets than Football games. How many soccer stadiums have been the target of terrorist attacks in countries that have more experience with terrorism (Ireland, France, Israel, Spain, Phillipines, Russia, the entire continent of South America, etc. - good lord, you act like there is no data to go on)? Not many, folks. Not that it isn't a good idea - just that there are much more attractive targets.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:02 AM on November 02, 2005
Dammit Weedy, I won't have you undermining a perfectly good bout of paranoid hysteria!
posted by The_Black_Hand at 09:25 AM on November 02, 2005
Weedy, could you point me to a source for all the relevant data about good places for terrorist attacks? I'm curious, because I'd want to know how they were determined and what factors influenced choices, i.e. would soccer stadiums be less likely to be targetd by national terrorists because they were fans of the team or the league, as opposed to Muslim terrorists bombing an NFL game because they saw it as part of the sickness in the United States? Thanks!
posted by wfrazerjr at 03:26 PM on November 02, 2005
Thanks for an incredibly stupid interpretation of my comments, Tron7. Interpretation? That was a joke to illustrate your paranoia. I think it's a logical next step to your theory. If spectators can be terrorists why not the players, right?
posted by tron7 at 05:03 PM on November 02, 2005
It's football.
posted by justbear at 11:39 AM on November 03, 2005
Since they stop the game and don't show security clobbering the drunken clown, why don't the networks zoom in on the cheerleaders for a few minutes. (That suggestion came from a drunken clown in my house watching the game.)
posted by pikkukani at 07:00 PM on November 03, 2005
Next time this happens, a couple linebackers ought to take off after the guy and clean his clock...they put him in the hospital for a week, and this won't happen again.