| Bradford Flare 14:26 - Aug 14 with 5850 views | Swailsey |
“Bradford City 'sickened' by use of pyrotechnics after fan injured at game”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/62540778
I dislike them anyway and think they’re pretty selfish and dangerous for those with asthma/COPD etc, but this, especially given Bradford’s history is so, so poor. [Post edited 14 Aug 2022 14:29]
|  |
| Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA |
| |  |
| Bradford Flare on 14:06 - Aug 15 with 918 views | MattinLondon |
| Bradford Flare on 13:48 - Aug 15 by Ryorry |
"a lot of people that use that argument have no problems owning a car"
What a nonsensical answer, a sign that you have 0 else to support your selfish view.
It obviously hasn't occurred to you that "a lot of people" with respiratory conditions have to use cars because they're too disabled or ill with those conditions to walk, cycle or use public transport; and/or live in rural areas where there's little or no public transport. |
Excuses excuses. |  | | |
| Bradford Flare on 14:06 - Aug 15 with 919 views | Slambo |
| Bradford Flare on 08:47 - Aug 15 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Around 1 in 5 suffer from respiratory conditions.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/clinical-policy/respiratory-disease/
It's quite funny to see how people think flares etc 'add to the colour and atmosphere' I wonder how many have actually been in the Nef Stadium in Instanbul, for example, when this 'atmosphere' is really kicking of, and have any idea how intimidating it is to be anywhere near it?
Of course what Matt and co are thinking about is the highly saturated TV pictures from Dortmund or Galatasray. Not Ipswich v Morecambe in League one.
And as for 'not selfish' when clearly the vast amount of people don't want it, but you still do because you think its 'cool' then, thats the definition of selfishness. [Post edited 15 Aug 2022 8:59]
|
1 in 5 suffering respiratory problems is extremely broad though. How many suffer from respiratory problems so severe that inhaling a bit of smoke from a smoke bomb would result in them getting seriously ill or even dying? You've said the majority of fans don't want it, but I wouldn't be so sure. It's time football authorities started to seriously look into and come up with workable solutions so everyone can benefit. As I said in a previous response, i'd propose designated pyro zones. That way fans who do have serious respiratory problems - or just don't like smoke bombs - could avoid them. Surely that's the best for everyone..? |  |
| |
| Bradford Flare on 14:22 - Aug 15 with 901 views | solemio |
Your wit, your eloquence and the closely argued views expressed in this post put me to shame.
Or to put it in language you might possibly understand : You silly child. Do make some attempt over the next decade or so to show some maturity and some evidence of intelligence. |  | | |
| Bradford Flare on 14:33 - Aug 15 with 884 views | legoman |
| Bradford Flare on 21:03 - Aug 14 by ITFC_Forever |
I personally don’t mind them and see why people think they add to the atmosphere.
But that is outweighed by sympathy for those who for medical reasons aren’t able to be so tolerant, and of course throwing them is wrong.
But on a more general point about them, aren’t there different types? The usual smoke flares, which while letting off the smoke etc, aren’t actually that hot, and the full on fire ones, which clearly are very hot and therefore have that added danger? |
No such think as a good flare, they stink and spoil the air quality in the stadium. The only ones who do not suffer are the ones throwing them as the breeze blows them away to others!
Season long ban is needed. | |
| |
| Bradford Flare on 14:44 - Aug 15 with 856 views | MattinLondon |
| Bradford Flare on 14:22 - Aug 15 by solemio |
Your wit, your eloquence and the closely argued views expressed in this post put me to shame.
Or to put it in language you might possibly understand : You silly child. Do make some attempt over the next decade or so to show some maturity and some evidence of intelligence. |
No need to make it personal you silly old sod. | | | |
| Bradford Flare on 14:45 - Aug 15 with 853 views | Ryorry |
| Bradford Flare on 14:06 - Aug 15 by Slambo |
1 in 5 suffering respiratory problems is extremely broad though. How many suffer from respiratory problems so severe that inhaling a bit of smoke from a smoke bomb would result in them getting seriously ill or even dying? You've said the majority of fans don't want it, but I wouldn't be so sure. It's time football authorities started to seriously look into and come up with workable solutions so everyone can benefit. As I said in a previous response, i'd propose designated pyro zones. That way fans who do have serious respiratory problems - or just don't like smoke bombs - could avoid them. Surely that's the best for everyone..? |
As I've pointed out before, smoke drifts uncontrollably & wind direction can be variable, often unpredictable, so dedicated 'pyro' zones are not the answer, they'd just put many people with asthma, chronic bronchitis, COPD etc. off going to games at all - and result in loss of revenue to the club as well, something which doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far. |  |
| |
| Bradford Flare on 17:55 - Aug 15 with 799 views | Skip_Intro |
| Bradford Flare on 14:06 - Aug 15 by Slambo |
1 in 5 suffering respiratory problems is extremely broad though. How many suffer from respiratory problems so severe that inhaling a bit of smoke from a smoke bomb would result in them getting seriously ill or even dying? You've said the majority of fans don't want it, but I wouldn't be so sure. It's time football authorities started to seriously look into and come up with workable solutions so everyone can benefit. As I said in a previous response, i'd propose designated pyro zones. That way fans who do have serious respiratory problems - or just don't like smoke bombs - could avoid them. Surely that's the best for everyone..? |
Just one person getting seriously ill or dying would be enough don't you think?
Also it's not just about making people seriously ill or killing them - if pyros make it difficult for potentially one in five people to breathe in such a crowded area just because it looks pretty and creates 'atmosphere' that's a pretty good reason to ban them imo even without the associated burns or fire risks.
Do you honestly think that the SBR lower of all the places in PR is a great place to be trusting people with pyros after a few beers? |  | | |
| Bradford Flare on 06:52 - Aug 16 with 717 views | Slambo |
| Bradford Flare on 14:45 - Aug 15 by Ryorry |
As I've pointed out before, smoke drifts uncontrollably & wind direction can be variable, often unpredictable, so dedicated 'pyro' zones are not the answer, they'd just put many people with asthma, chronic bronchitis, COPD etc. off going to games at all - and result in loss of revenue to the club as well, something which doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far. |
They don't burn for that long and the smoke dissipates pretty quickly. Having been caught up in more smoke bomb situations than I care to mention, it's mildly irritating for a few seconds and then that's it. I think people are assuming they're a lot worse than they are. The pyro zones i'd propose would be at the front of the NL, specifically section 6, so when detonated most of the smoke would dissipate into the open air where the pitch is. Even being sat in the neighbouring blocks you'd barely notice it, elsewhere in the stand/ground you wouldn't notice it at all... [Post edited 16 Aug 2022 7:06]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bradford Flare on 07:05 - Aug 16 with 713 views | Slambo |
| Bradford Flare on 17:55 - Aug 15 by Skip_Intro |
Just one person getting seriously ill or dying would be enough don't you think?
Also it's not just about making people seriously ill or killing them - if pyros make it difficult for potentially one in five people to breathe in such a crowded area just because it looks pretty and creates 'atmosphere' that's a pretty good reason to ban them imo even without the associated burns or fire risks.
Do you honestly think that the SBR lower of all the places in PR is a great place to be trusting people with pyros after a few beers? |
As I said in response to Ryorry, smoke bombs burn for a few seconds and the smoke dissipates quickly. Having one let off right next to you can be intense, but what i'd propose would eliminate that happening. The 'pyro zones' would be at the front of the NL specifically S6, so most of the smoke would go into the open air of the pitch. You'd barely notice in a neighbouring block and not at all in other parts of the ground. Fans with severe/life-threatening breathing difficulties could also just have a mask - would assume they'd have one on them in a post Covid world anyway. Not any old Tom, Dick & Harry could let them off. I'd envisage a small, barred enclosure (much like the disabled bit at the front there now). The person who wants to let one off would be known to the nearby fire marshall, they go in and crack on. You could even have rules as to when or how many times they're allowed to be let off. Anyone popping them off in the wrong place and at the wrong time would be dealt with as normal... | |
| |
| Bradford Flare on 12:36 - Aug 16 with 643 views | Ryorry |
| Bradford Flare on 06:52 - Aug 16 by Slambo |
They don't burn for that long and the smoke dissipates pretty quickly. Having been caught up in more smoke bomb situations than I care to mention, it's mildly irritating for a few seconds and then that's it. I think people are assuming they're a lot worse than they are. The pyro zones i'd propose would be at the front of the NL, specifically section 6, so when detonated most of the smoke would dissipate into the open air where the pitch is. Even being sat in the neighbouring blocks you'd barely notice it, elsewhere in the stand/ground you wouldn't notice it at all... [Post edited 16 Aug 2022 7:06]
|
I don't think generalized/vague comments like "pretty quickly", "mildly irritating for a few seconds and then that's it", "you'd barely notice it", etc. carry any weight unless you're medically qualified tbh. Even if you had a respiratory condition yourself (which from the sound of it you don't, but I'm happy to be corrected), individuals will vary re the severity of their condition & possible reaction.
Pretty sure Covid masks are different in their construction (prevent any viruses from you going out to others) from smoke inhalation masks (prevent you breathing small particles in) too. | |
| |
| Bradford Flare on 12:40 - Aug 16 with 645 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Bradford Flare on 07:05 - Aug 16 by Slambo |
As I said in response to Ryorry, smoke bombs burn for a few seconds and the smoke dissipates quickly. Having one let off right next to you can be intense, but what i'd propose would eliminate that happening. The 'pyro zones' would be at the front of the NL specifically S6, so most of the smoke would go into the open air of the pitch. You'd barely notice in a neighbouring block and not at all in other parts of the ground. Fans with severe/life-threatening breathing difficulties could also just have a mask - would assume they'd have one on them in a post Covid world anyway. Not any old Tom, Dick & Harry could let them off. I'd envisage a small, barred enclosure (much like the disabled bit at the front there now). The person who wants to let one off would be known to the nearby fire marshall, they go in and crack on. You could even have rules as to when or how many times they're allowed to be let off. Anyone popping them off in the wrong place and at the wrong time would be dealt with as normal... |
To repeat, for just about anyone that keeps calling for 'PyroZones' in the EFL.
a) Discharging a pyro in public is a criminal offence
b) Its also against all ground regulations and could result in a football banning order.
Personally, after the 'PyroZones' come in, I'm looking forward to the introduction of 'Seal Clubbing' Zones. It's an unfairly criticised football related activity. |  |
| |
| Bradford Flare on 14:16 - Aug 16 with 623 views | maccyd9 |
As previously mentioned, I'd be very keen to see the data from almost every other league in world football where this is commonplace, as to the extent of problems it causes.
Rightly for some and wrongly for others, football in this country is sanitised more than anywhere else. The MLS let some fella chop wood with a chainsaw after every goal they score.
And in Germany, perhaps the league and football culture most aligned with ourselves, the use of pyro is as big as anywhere. | | | |
| Bradford Flare on 15:08 - Aug 16 with 577 views | jeera |
| Bradford Flare on 14:16 - Aug 16 by maccyd9 |
As previously mentioned, I'd be very keen to see the data from almost every other league in world football where this is commonplace, as to the extent of problems it causes.
Rightly for some and wrongly for others, football in this country is sanitised more than anywhere else. The MLS let some fella chop wood with a chainsaw after every goal they score.
And in Germany, perhaps the league and football culture most aligned with ourselves, the use of pyro is as big as anywhere. |
Why does some bloke chop wood after a goal?
Instead of pyros do they start a small bonfire or something? |  |
| |
| Bradford Flare on 15:13 - Aug 16 with 571 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Bradford Flare on 14:16 - Aug 16 by maccyd9 |
As previously mentioned, I'd be very keen to see the data from almost every other league in world football where this is commonplace, as to the extent of problems it causes.
Rightly for some and wrongly for others, football in this country is sanitised more than anywhere else. The MLS let some fella chop wood with a chainsaw after every goal they score.
And in Germany, perhaps the league and football culture most aligned with ourselves, the use of pyro is as big as anywhere. |
Except in Germany they're legal, and here, they 'aint.
https://www.euronews.com/2020/02/04/german-football-fans-allowed-to-set-off-sing
So the 'data', whatever it says, is irrelevant unless the law is changed. [Post edited 16 Aug 2022 15:13]
| |
| |
| Bradford Flare on 15:33 - Aug 16 with 557 views | Mullet |
| Bradford Flare on 07:05 - Aug 16 by Slambo |
As I said in response to Ryorry, smoke bombs burn for a few seconds and the smoke dissipates quickly. Having one let off right next to you can be intense, but what i'd propose would eliminate that happening. The 'pyro zones' would be at the front of the NL specifically S6, so most of the smoke would go into the open air of the pitch. You'd barely notice in a neighbouring block and not at all in other parts of the ground. Fans with severe/life-threatening breathing difficulties could also just have a mask - would assume they'd have one on them in a post Covid world anyway. Not any old Tom, Dick & Harry could let them off. I'd envisage a small, barred enclosure (much like the disabled bit at the front there now). The person who wants to let one off would be known to the nearby fire marshall, they go in and crack on. You could even have rules as to when or how many times they're allowed to be let off. Anyone popping them off in the wrong place and at the wrong time would be dealt with as normal... |
The problem is, most people's experiences is someone rolling them/kicking them about out of nowhere and it being rather sh1t.
I think it was Cardiff one got set off and it was bloody horrible as it all blew back on the away end too and upset more people than usual.
With COVID now, and the unknown effects of people's lungs I think it's a hard sell regardless because of that perception and risk. I don't think it's fair to put that risk on people so zones might work, but I can't see a big enough change in thinking to see it through. |  |
| |
| Bradford Flare on 15:38 - Aug 16 with 538 views | leitrimblue |
| Bradford Flare on 14:33 - Aug 15 by legoman |
No such think as a good flare, they stink and spoil the air quality in the stadium. The only ones who do not suffer are the ones throwing them as the breeze blows them away to others!
Season long ban is needed. |
No such thing as a good flare! Clearly you never witnessed the stunning pair of brown chords I owned in the early 90,s |  | | |
| Bradford Flare on 15:44 - Aug 16 with 519 views | Ryorry |
| Bradford Flare on 15:38 - Aug 16 by leitrimblue |
No such thing as a good flare! Clearly you never witnessed the stunning pair of brown chords I owned in the early 90,s |
If that's all you were wearing, I'd love to have seen you ;) | |
| |
| Bradford Flare on 15:54 - Aug 16 with 499 views | maccyd9 |
The data is irrelevant if the argument against it's use on here was purely down to it being illegal. Which is not the case. | | | |
| Bradford Flare on 16:13 - Aug 16 with 471 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Bradford Flare on 15:54 - Aug 16 by maccyd9 |
The data is irrelevant if the argument against it's use on here was purely down to it being illegal. Which is not the case. |
Them being illegal makes the any argument for their use irrelevant in the first place. Once they've been made legal then we can start looking at whether or not they are bad for peoples health.
Unless you're suggesting we totally ignore their illegality, and the fact they are against ground regulations and just keep using them because 'theres no proof' that they are bad for peoples health?
And I suppose, because you quite like them? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
