11/21/24
July 01, 2008
Are you ready for some football?....Sit Down!: The Kansas City Chiefs have a "Fan Code of Conduct," which is essentially a list of rules that fans have to follow when they're attending a game at Arrowhead.
Not only that, Pro Football Talk points out how seated fans can anonymously tattle on their upright counterparts: The Chiefs also have set up a text-messaging system that allows fans who might be offended by behaviors like standing to report the situation to the powers-that-be. So if I want to stand up, I should clandestinely observe who is using their cell phone, crawl over to them, pull them down onto the floor and choke them out first, right? (Before all of the anal retentive poster(s) start pointing out that fighting will get you ejected also, this was meant as a sarcastic comment, not reality - and by the way, if you are so damn interested in what is happening on the field, why are you sending text messages on your cell phone instead of watching the game?) There is less than one minute left in the fourth quarter. Chiefs are down by 6 and are on their own 45. A bomb is thrown to the reciever who is covered closely by the opponents cornerback, and the ball is knocked away on a questionable call. The field judge does not throw a flag, but the replay board shows clear interference. Do we halt the game for 6 hours so that 55,000 Chief fans can be escorted out of the stadium? Yeah, right.....the text messaging fan is going to have some sore fingertips. Just as a comparison, less than 12 years ago, both the St Louis Blues and the Chicago Blackhawks used to sell "partially obstructed view" tickets for playoff games which were behind posts and supports. If they were playing each other, you couldn't get one of these tickets to save your ass. If you expect to see all of the action, stay home and watch it on TV. It's the experience of being there that matters. I don't know how many of you have ever sat in the upper end corners of the endzone at any of the old round multipurpose stadiums, but you couldn't tell what was happening on the field about 25% of the time anyway because of the angle and distance.
posted by knowsalittle at 11:04 PM on July 01, 2008
Well, given the Chiefs prospects this year, they may not have to worry about too many people standing up, unless it is to throw something at Carl Peterson in the press box (which i do not advocate). In all seriousness, this is a bad pr move by the Chiefs. They have some of the best fans (if volume is a major criteria) in the NFL. Given the fact that they don't have much to cheer about lately anyway, telling the rabid, loyal fans to sit down will only increase the frustration at this team's recent ineptitude. There will be a backlash to this, and my guess is that by game 6 or so the policy will just disappear.
posted by brainofdtrain at 11:47 PM on July 01, 2008
Just as a comparison, less than 12 years ago, both the St Louis Blues and the Chicago Blackhawks used to sell "partially obstructed view" tickets for playoff games which were behind posts and supports. The Kiel Center (now Scottrade Center) in St. Louis opened in 1994, so it was more like 14 years ago. But I remember those obstructed view seats very well at the Old Barn (Arena/Checkerdome). It meant you were literally sitting behind a big steel I-beam. But knowsalittle is exactly right, there wasn't an empty seat in the building, especially during the playoffs. But more in relation to the article, fan "behavior" at the Arena was far worse than having somebody stand up in front of you. You were likely to receive a shampoo of beer and nachos, jumped on, high five-d, yelled at, cursed at and a stain on that brand new jersey. And that's if you were a home team fan. Despite all that, I loved that place, and I went back again and again. I get the idea of what the Chiefs are trying to do by making the stadium a more "family friendly" place. I guess the backlash would occur depending on how the rules are to be enforced. I'm sure that during the exciting parts of the game, fans will be expected to cheer, jump up and stand while celebrating. But if some drunk guy stands up and blocks views solely to be an asshole, they have a reason to kick him out. So if the rules are enforced correctly, I think it's a great idea to bring families back to football.
posted by BoKnows at 12:23 AM on July 02, 2008
So if the rules are enforced correctly, I think it's a great idea to bring families back to football. If you wanna get my family to go to the game, don't enforce a bunch of code of conduct rules, lower the frakkin' prices. My two cents says that if you encourage fans to rat out their fellow fans via text messaging, the local proctologist will be quite busy performing cell phone-ectomys.
posted by THX-1138 at 12:51 AM on July 02, 2008
If you wanna get my family to go to the game, don't enforce a bunch of code of conduct rules, lower the frakkin' prices. Touché.
posted by BoKnows at 01:08 AM on July 02, 2008
So if the rules are enforced correctly, I think it's a great idea to bring families back to football. BoKnows, You are probably right on this, but the problem is that the world has a lot of jerks in it, who collectively transcend age, socio-economic status, race, etc etc. To me it is these people who inevitably abuse or ignore the rules to the point where KC's PR people would have been better served to not have messed with this in the 1st place. I agree that it is a good idea in theory; but when you get a ton of people at a sporting event, mix in some neurotic love/hate for one of the teams and alcohol, then you have a recipe for disaster (and lawsuits).
posted by brainofdtrain at 01:10 AM on July 02, 2008
To me it is these people who inevitably abuse or ignore the rules to the point where KC's PR people would have been better served to not have messed with this in the 1st place. So what should they do? Rely on 50,000+ jerks to fill the seats every Sunday?
posted by BoKnows at 01:27 AM on July 02, 2008
Really though, the list of rules, pretty much eliminates everyone. (At least that I know.)
posted by BoKnows at 01:31 AM on July 02, 2008
So what should they do? Rely on 50,000+ jerks to fill the seats every Sunday? Yeah, neither alternative seems that appealing. Nevertheless, the old way equaled a sold-out arrowhead stadium for decades. This move has the potential to ruin that, especially if discrimination claims come up. While i understand the ethical quandry, it seems like this could harm the team fiscally. There is very little to gain (the stadium is already full, little pr issues), and much to lose (discrimination claims, pr disaster, loss of long-time season ticket holders, etc). I hate to be so pragmatic about this issue, but since there is no magic bullet (jerks will always exist), i don't see what they gain from changing. Does becoming more family-friendly really help them that much? If so, how? I guess if someone can give me good answers to those questions, i could be converted.
posted by brainofdtrain at 01:38 AM on July 02, 2008
(Before all of the anal retentive poster(s) start pointing out that fighting will get you ejected also, this was meant as a sarcastic comment, not reality - and by the way, if you are so damn interested in what is happening on the field, why are you sending text messages on your cell phone instead of watching the game?) Because some knob is standing up in front of me and I can't watch the game? I hate the code-phrase "family-friendly". Just hate it to death. So-called "families" don't have some kind of moral monopoly on civilized behavior, as any observation of a family with out-of-control kids out in public will tell you.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:14 AM on July 02, 2008
Herman Edwards doesn't care about any of this. No matter what the Chiefs' fans do, it's an upgrade from his previous location.
posted by beaverboard at 07:25 AM on July 02, 2008
I wish they could institute that rule at Fenway. Red Sox Nation doesn't understand when to sit down.
posted by TheQatarian at 07:44 AM on July 02, 2008
hate the code-phrase "family-friendly". Just hate it to death. So-called "families" don't have some kind of moral monopoly on civilized behavior, as any observation of a family with out-of-control kids out in public will tell you. Who said they do. Rather have a rambunctious child than some drunk swearing idiot sitting in front of me. Reason never took my children to football games was because of that very fact. Baseball games for some reason (at least in St. Louis and staying out of bleachers) were more hospitable to families.
posted by giveuptheghost at 07:56 AM on July 02, 2008
I wish they could institute that rule at Fenway. Red Sox Nation doesn't understand when to sit down. How often are you there? I'm usually aghast at this sort of Orwellian thing, but I do think something needs to be done to make people remember they're at an event with tens of thousands of strangers and it'd be nice if they acted with some courtesy. If it means being able to text message security anonymously to put the fear of God into the assholes with their cellphones and beer spilling and shitty behavior, I guess that's what it's come to. I'm with lbb that the focus on "family" puts a spin on it I could do without, but I'm guessing (hoping) that's just a cover to slip in some behavior rules.
posted by yerfatma at 08:31 AM on July 02, 2008
I guess that's what it's come to. I'm with lbb that the focus on "family" puts a spin on it I could do without, but I'm guessing (hoping) that's just a cover to slip in some behavior rules. Look, today kids are tomorrow adult fans. Football is a business and the owners are trying to sell a product. Using family friendly is a good a term as any other. As far as spin, name one thing that doesn't have a spin on it in today's culture.
posted by giveuptheghost at 08:38 AM on July 02, 2008
Rather have a rambunctious child than some drunk swearing idiot sitting in front of me. Does it have to be either/or? 'Cos if so, I really don't like either of those options, but I have much better luck and experience dealing with drunken idiots than I do screeching children. Which NFL franchise was it that instituted the fan hotline so folks could call in and report unruly behavior from drunk adults? Cleveland? Cincy? Think it was something like that. Anyhow, obviously drunk idiots can be tossed from the game for obscene behavior, but I've never seen a toddler booted from, well, anywhere.
posted by Ufez Jones at 08:47 AM on July 02, 2008
A long time ago I decided to go to Arrowhead for the tail-gating then go home and watch the game on TV. Seems like I was always sitting behind the WOOO! people. You know, the guy with too much beer whose only purpose in life is to scream WOOO! after every play and high-five all around him. Standing at a sports event always struck me as odd herd behavior anyway. If everyone stayed seated, everyone would see exactly the same thing that you see when everyone stands up. Except for short people, kids, the less mobile... Like most silly ideas, this Code of Conduct probably has (or, at some point) some good intentions, but it's not going to significantly change the fan experience at Arrowhead.
posted by Monkeyhawk at 08:55 AM on July 02, 2008
Does it have to be either/or? 'Cos if so, I really don't like either of those options, but I have much better luck and experience dealing with drunken idiots than I do screeching children. Prefer neither also, but I never witness a child cussing or spilling beer all over other fans, and if they stand ; still can sit in my seat and see the game. Besides, most parents are responsible enough to wheel in their children in, if they become unruly. Of course, there are exception to any scenario, be it in the stadium or the grocery store.
posted by giveuptheghost at 09:34 AM on July 02, 2008
I agree that this is a dumb rule, but I'd be surprised if this is enforced with any tenacity. Arrowhead is not one of the loudest stadia in the country because the fans there like to sit down. Given that this is coupled with the text-messaging system, I'm betting they don't do anything unless there is a complaint, and even then, they're not going to throw you out. They're just going to ask you to sit down.
posted by bender at 09:48 AM on July 02, 2008
Besides, most parents are responsible enough to wheel in their children in, if they become unruly. You live in a much better place than I do. I once got yelled at by a mother for sshing her kid in the movies because I should expect that at matinees.
posted by yerfatma at 10:36 AM on July 02, 2008
Prefer neither also, but I never witness a child cussing or spilling beer all over other fans, and if they stand ; still can sit in my seat and see the game. Sure. I'll grant you that. However I've never witnessed a drunk person throwing open mustard packets and shitting his pants and screaming at a level that hurts even my damaged ears. Like I said, drunks are easily (and yeah, I've witnessed it time and time again) taken care of by ushers and/or security. Toddlers? Not so damn much.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:45 AM on July 02, 2008
Who said they do. Everybody who uses "family-friendly" as a code phrase for "civilized", as they seem to be doing in this case.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:52 AM on July 02, 2008
Sure. I'll grant you that. However I've never witnessed a drunk person throwing open mustard packets and shitting his pants and screaming at a level that hurts even my damaged ears. Your trying to tell me a child is screaming louder than fans at football game. Find this very hard to believe. Never was puked on by a child from above, either. Well, if that's your feeling, let them make a rule that no children under the age of 13 be allowed in stadium ( see if that will fly with the owners), or parents that can not control there kids be asked to leave the stadium. Just like they do drunks, however they are usually escorted out in handcuffs and not politely , I might add. As far a child soiling himself, make a rule to have children changed at bathrooms, most of them have changing stations. llb-what term would you use to try and market a facility that welcomes all members from the same domestic unit ? Put your marketing shoes on, and tell me what term you would use. The owners are not trying to equate "civilized with family", there trying to sell a product and want to make it as accommodating as possible for all members of the family.
posted by giveuptheghost at 11:57 AM on July 02, 2008
"Drunk Fan Gets Arrested At Arrowhead" "Family Gets Ousted From Chiefs Game For Not Controlling Child" Which headline does everyone think is preferred? When I see the first I'm not sure if I would give it a second glance and just think some guy got a little too out of control. On the second one, I'm reading that article to see exactly what happened. It's almost like the drunk guy gets a pass. Parents who can't controll their children should think twice about where they take them. Games...Airplanes...Restaurants...Movies...maybe stay at home and read some parenting books. I know that's harsh but that's just how I feel. Also, what exactly is "harassment of visiting teams fans"? If it's giving them some shit for cheering for the visiting team, they should expect that. If these fans have the balls to wear the opposing teams jersey and cheer for the away team they should expect to take some from the home fans. Iv'e been to plenty of games away and cheer for my home teams. I enjoy the harassment. It's part of the game. Off topic...Why do some people go to games and wear a jersey or something else of a team that's not even playing? Has everyone seen this or is it just because I live (and am from) Atlanta where everyone is a transplant. I think I'll wear my Steelers jersey to the Falcons, Panthers game. Makes no sense.
posted by cheemo13 at 01:09 PM on July 02, 2008
Standing at a sports event always struck me as odd herd behavior anyway. In college, the student section remained standing throughout the game. The alumni sat down through the whole game. The first time I saw a game on the alumni side, I thought it was dreadful. You can see the game better at home on the television. You go to the games for the atmosphere. Standing up the whole game is bad if you want children attending because they won't be able to see.
posted by bperk at 01:27 PM on July 02, 2008
Couple of things here: I have kids and even I know the difference between the WOO HOO! type fans and an infant wailing his head off. Human beings are wired to get agitated at the cry of a baby. It forces us to want to fix the cause of the distress to the child. Fans cheering at a football game go with the territory. But another point is why would you take a toddler to a football game in the first place? If you can't find a sitter, you don't go to the game. Or the movies. Or the restaurant. The end. Why does a sporting event have to cater to a family? Something else that seems to be pointed out here is the conduct being exhibited at stadiums. Maybe I'm just lucky to attend games in Seattle (well, except for the M's this year) because I've never had anyone spill beer on me, puke on me or near me for that matter, swear too much, or behave in an overly boorish manner. As for my kids, I just let them know that some people are better behaved than others and what I expect from people I take to a game. I know that it's bad some places because you all have educated me to that fact. I just have never experienced it here.
posted by THX-1138 at 01:39 PM on July 02, 2008
Sure. I'll grant you that. However I've never witnessed a drunk person throwing open mustard packets and shitting his pants and screaming at a level that hurts even my damaged ears. I've witnessed all 3 by a drunk person (actually PISSING his pants, but same difference). In fact the last football game I attended had some drunk guy in front of me thinking it was funny to throw peanuts down 10 or so rows and pegging people in the head and laughing when they would turn around trying to figure out who the idiot was. This was a 30-something year old man doing this. At the same game a guy on my row past out cold and each time we had to get up for concessions/bathroom, we had to crawl over him as he was un-movable. Drunks are way more unmanageable than kids as they are basically kids + 200 pounds.
posted by bdaddy at 02:03 PM on July 02, 2008
giveuptheghost: llb-what term would you use to try and market a facility that welcomes all members from the same domestic unit ? Put your marketing shoes on, and tell me what term you would use. The owners are not trying to equate "civilized with family", there trying to sell a product and want to make it as accommodating as possible for all members of the family. You presume that marketing to "families" is my goal. Do I make more money because a "family" mom dad little jimmy and little janey are sitting in four seats?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:12 PM on July 02, 2008
As for my kids, I just let them know that some people are better behaved than others and what I expect from people I take to a game. Now just a minute there THX-1138. What are you? Some kind of responsible parent? (good for you) The standing up rule I can see. Be damned if I am going to pay my hard earned money to look at someone's back. Stand for a second to see what happened, or to catch the replay-no problem. But standing the entire game-no! The no coolers/flasks etc etc is just so they can gouge you on their over priced stadium drinks. And you can get drunk on those too if you care to spend enough. Have either a "family" section or a "anything goes" section. That is what NASCAR did at some of their tracks The rest is just a bunch of B.S. if you ask me.
posted by steelergirl at 02:29 PM on July 02, 2008
Why does a sporting event have to cater to a family? Obvouisly at Arrowhead they do, or the Chiefs would prohibit children from entering the stadium. They want future fans, easy question. infant wailing his head off. Infants or toddlers are not allowed to cry even if some drunk throws a beer on them from above. If your bringing a child to the game, they should be (with their parents) segregated at the back of the stadium, because we as a society don't want to subject the other fans to their incessant crying and shitty diapers in the isles. If these rules are acceptable to you and others, maybe all dissatisfied fans should sign a petition, and send to the Chiefs and other NFL teams around the league. When, and if they arrive at the same time at NFL offices, the collective laughter will be so loud, you'd welcome the incessant wailing from children. Not trying to make light of your opinion-just pointing out real life.
posted by giveuptheghost at 02:33 PM on July 02, 2008
You presume that marketing to "families" is my goal. Who said anything about your goal. The owner goals are the question here. What term would you use if you had the ad account and wanted to make the stadium conductive to family members. You don't like "family friendly", give a alternative, if you don't agree with something, suggest something better or more appropriate.
posted by giveuptheghost at 02:44 PM on July 02, 2008
Not trying to make light of your opinion-just pointing out real life. "Real life" is that children are a sacred cow, and if you try to restrict their presence, you're just a big ol' meanie, that's what. Fortunately, some sensible people are standing up to that. There's a restaurant (probably more than one by now) near the mountain where I do most of my skiing, with a discreet sign at the entrance that says, in very polite language, that the establishment has standards for behavior that extend to children as well. See, while "families" have economic clout, people who do not want their dining experience interrupted by screaming by someone of any age can also vote with their dollars. Interestingly, the Chiefs' policy says nothing on the subject of volume. Seems adults are free to scream, "WOOOO!!!" and babies are free to scream "WAAAAAH" as loud as they want. Just don't say, "Motherfucker," no matter how moderate your tone.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:45 PM on July 02, 2008
Who said anything about your goal. You did. You said, "llb-what term would you use to try and market a facility that welcomes all members from the same domestic unit ? Put your marketing shoes on, and tell me what term you would use." You set me a goal. Did you want the question answered or not? The owner goals are the question here. What term would you use if you had the ad account and wanted to make the stadium conductive to family members. You don't like "family friendly", give a alternative, if you don't agree with something, suggest something better or more appropriate. Oh, okay, so we've got a different question now. The answer is the same, but I'll modify the wording somewhat so you can see what I'm getting at. Just why should I want to "make the stadium conductive[sic] to family members"? That's a nonsense phrase to begin with, practically everybody is a member of a family, so maybe you ought to say what you mean, parents with young children. Okay, so why should I want to make the stadium congenial to parents with young children? They don't pay any more per seat than anyone else.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:51 PM on July 02, 2008
I give up, you didn't answer the question with you and didn't answer the question when posed as a emplyee/owner of ad agency. I'll accept "family friendly", and accept you don't like it. Case closed. There is one question I would like to ask, however it doesn't relate to thread, and really just for my own curiosity. Have a nice day.
posted by giveuptheghost at 03:00 PM on July 02, 2008
Okay, so why should I want to make the stadium congenial to parents with young children? To make lifelong fans.
posted by bperk at 03:13 PM on July 02, 2008
There is one question I would like to ask, however it doesn't relate to thread, and really just for my own curiosity. Which is?
posted by BoKnows at 03:13 PM on July 02, 2008
ghost, I think you missed my point. Completely. I didn't say that sports venues should prohibit children from entering stadiums. I asked why do they feel the need to cater to families at the possible exclusion of others. Different things entirely. As for my quote about the infant wailing his head off, that was about on third of the actual sentence I wrote. My point was actually an acknowledgement of the fact that infants crying can be annoying. I never said anything about "shitty diapers in the isles". Do you mean the Brtitish Isles? Naw, I know what you meant. I don't feel in the least like you were making fun of my opinion as I don't think you actually addressed what it was. But quite possibly you quoted me and were addressing l_b_b. And I have one question for you:
posted by THX-1138 at 03:19 PM on July 02, 2008
And I have one question for you: posted by THX-1138 at 3:19 PM CDT on Go ahead, however I may not answer. Have a nice day.
posted by giveuptheghost at 03:37 PM on July 02, 2008
I reach, brother.
posted by THX-1138 at 03:43 PM on July 02, 2008
I have one question as well, but more on that later. Why would a team even want a more "family friendly" environment for the entire stadium? I gotta believe that the beer drinking group spends more than the family does per seat. Sure, the family may buy a couple more souveniers, but the beers at $8.75 add up. Besides, can't they do a "family section"? I know the Metrodome has an alcohol free section, maybe the Chiefs could offer that up and see what the demand was. Maybe it's too simple an idea...marketing types hate that. Off topic...Why do some people go to games and wear a jersey or something else of a team that's not even playing? Has everyone seen this or is it just because I live (and am from) Atlanta where everyone is a transplant I see this everywhere, and what really confuses me is when the jersey is for a completely different sport and a team from another city. As in a Cubs jersey at a Cowboys/Eagles games. What the heck is that about? And, now for the question
posted by dviking at 05:30 PM on July 02, 2008
Okay, so why should I want to make the stadium congenial to parents with young children? They don't pay any more per seat than anyone else. Actually, I'd bet it works out that they spend about the same as your average Dick Drunkass. It takes at least one adult to bring a minor into the game, plus they invariably buy food and drink for the child. There's also a good chance there will be souvenirs purchased. In addition, while the child may be just as annoying, it's highly unlikely he or she will start a fight or require removal from the premises. Dick Drunkass needs constant supervision and also comes with the extra bonus of possibly hurting someone in the stands or killing someone in an accident on the way home, leading to a nice lawsuit for the team. "Real life" is that children are a sacred cow, and if you try to restrict their presence, you're just a big ol' meanie, that's what. I'd agree. If your saying people shouldn't go out to dinner because they have kids, you are a big ol' meanie. You live in a much better place than I do. I once got yelled at by a mother for sshing her kid in the movies because I should expect that at matinees. Can I ask what you went to see?
posted by wfrazerjr at 06:41 PM on July 02, 2008
Ugh. If you're saying ... Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
posted by wfrazerjr at 06:52 PM on July 02, 2008
Dick Drunkass Instant classic, iconic label. I hate you.
posted by irunfromclones at 07:10 PM on July 02, 2008
I'll be selling the Chiefs customized jerseys on my web site as soon as I can hire the Chinese child-labour force to make them. Right now, they are all apparently busy making Olympic trinkets (boys) or being drowned (girls).
posted by wfrazerjr at 09:59 PM on July 02, 2008
The solution is: Duct tape -- can be used to keep both drunks and children quiet and seated.
posted by Monica Poland at 12:07 AM on July 03, 2008
Actually, I'd bet it works out that they spend about the same as your average Dick Drunkass. It takes at least one adult to bring a minor into the game, plus they invariably buy food and drink for the child. There's also a good chance there will be souvenirs purchased. Quite possibly, but I haven't seen any numbers to indicate that the average "family" spends more than any four other people in the park, many of whom also buy souvenirs and none of whom get any kiddie discounts. The only other economic motive for catering to so-called "families" is this nebulous hope that the kids will "grow up to be lifetime fans". Again, I don't know that there's evidence to support this idea that a trip to a stadium is a transformative experience that makes the difference between whether a kid grows up to be a fan. Seems to me that if the family are fans of a team, watching at home on TV, the kid will probably grow up to be a fan too...and if they aren't, one trip to the stadium won't make a difference. So if it ain't the money, why cater to "families"? Once again, we're back to sacred cows, I think. Oh, yeah, I have an answer to those questions:
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:26 AM on July 03, 2008
Can I ask what you went to see? The first Spiderman movie, which was rated PG-13. The kid was about 6 and kept up a stream of questions throughout the movie in that voice kids use before they actually learn to whisper. Even if I'd gone to see Rainbow Brite, I think there's a reasonable expectation of a mom throwing a net over a kid who can be heard throughout the theater. I refuse to have to accept shitty behavior because small white children are our most precious resource.
posted by yerfatma at 11:22 AM on July 03, 2008
Dick Drunkass He prefers Richard.
posted by cjets at 11:56 AM on July 03, 2008
Ya' know, there are some real differences between attending NFL games in the stadium and watching at home: I like to watch the game completely drunk and naked. Ya' just can't do that sort of thing at home. I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
posted by THX-1138 at 02:22 PM on July 03, 2008
I spent some major bucks for 40 yard line tickets 6 rows from the Niners bench a few years ago as a special treat for my son. There were 4-5 large characters in the front row all decked out in wild outfits including large hats and helmets- the Niner version of the Raiders "Black Hole". We were mildly amused by this group until the game started. Everyone stood for the anthem and the kickoff, but they remained standing, blocking our view when the rest of the stadium had sat down. When I said "blocking our view", I really mean they were blocking a lot of the field. They were big and fat to begin with, but all the gear they had on super-sized them. After a few minutes of this I am getting pretty pissed, and finally asked them to sit down, at which point one of them replied that "we stand the entire game, its what we do". That illicited quite a few more remarks from the rest of the people behind them. I think everyone was just waiting for someone else to be the first to say something. In short order it degenerated into a shouting match that quickly brought security. The Dick Drunkasses (copyright wfrazerjr) defense was that as season ticket holders they had the right to stand, while the rest of us claimed we spent good money to watch the game, not their fat asses. Since the stadium didn't have a specific rule about standing by your seats, security couldn't do anything but keep the confrontation from going nuclear. I have no doubts however, that some of the threats about continuing the discussion in the parking lot were acted upon. We ended up having to stand for most of the game in order to see it, along with most of the people in the section we were in. Whenever security walked away, the standing fans were pelted with food, drinks, and whatever else was at hand. We tried to make the best of the situation, but the experience was basically ruined. I think some kind of conduct code would not be a bad idea.
posted by irunfromclones at 02:29 PM on July 03, 2008
It sounds like one of those ideas that never get off the drawing board, but this one apparently did. It'll be hillarious to see how the Chiefs pull this one off.
posted by lsutigers96 at 11:15 AM on July 07, 2008
especially if the person responsible for coming up with the rules is an 85-year-old woman who teaches the 2nd grade and regards standing up as one of the evil things that young whippersnappers often do. You mean to say this guy could not learn a lesson from a 85 year old lady. Geez, what a prick.