I don't think he's sulking, I think he just has a nonchalant style and more importantly, lacks intensity and aggression which often helps youngsters make up for a lack of experience and quality. Sellers Fleming is lacking in that department too and from what I've seen of Burstow he also lacks it. When you look at Ohio, he was just as raw as these guys really but he had the intensity and aggression in abundance which made a huge difference.
Burns had cramp shortly before going off so that's probably what led to him going off. McLoughlin was also limping heavily late on.
I find the opinions on Jarvis, TSF and Burns fascinating. Burns was no better than our 2 academy kids last night. He was non existent 1st half and he really struggled in midfield. He looked slow, lacked physicality and was off the pace. He did much better at CB but they stopped pressing and he had time on the ball (he's clearly a very good passer), yet I've not seen any criticism about him. I thought they all did okay, TSF got bullied by their 2 CBs but Oscar did too when he came on.
Macca got crocked after Jarvis gave him a hospital ball - he was none to happy about it either - thought Macca played ok last night
Burns is definitely a centre back, he looked so much more at home and comfortable there in the second half.
Plod (aka officious ****s) have had a muscle flex this week, they visited Botanic and told them they needed bouncers for the Wednesday and Millwall matches, they were told to get stuffed. Ebenezer's were told to use plastic glasses between 5 and 8 last night, and for the Millwall match, they fell for it. A quick pint in Ebenezer's last night and across the road to Admiral who were serving in proper glasses.
Back in the day Humbs finest closed all the pubs ( or tried too) in Hull for a midweek visit of..........Southend United. Coinicidently it was during a time the club were in dispute with Humbs finest over the number of 'officers' required on a matchday. A similar 'incident' developed outside Silver Cod before a pre season friendly with Boro too, again following a dispute between the club and and the local Plod over police numbers at City games. Meanwhile in the same city, none are required to police a RL game?
The rules for policing football versus RL are the same across the country (well along the M62 in the case of RL!), its not unique to Humberside Police. There’s less restriction on travel, segregation and alcohol in RL, they simply don’t need the same level of policing to enforce the rules. Whether it’s fair that there’s a difference is up for debate, whilst I certainly don’t think RL fans are angels, I think we’d see a sharp increase in football disorder if we applied the same rules.
The number of police at City games is clearly excessive, but the the same thing happens at some Hull FC games. After the trouble at the derby game, the following derby game had a police presence similar to a City game and they weren't allowed bottles (even soft drinks had to be served in plastic cups) and KR fans were warned that if they were found in FC seats they would automatically be ejected.
Even after the bottle throwing at the RL derby, and it wasn't the first time it had happened, alcohol is still allowed to be drank in your seats. Something not allowed at football, in the same same city, same stadium, same police and licensing restrictions. I know it's a FL regulation but that doesnt make it right, that is nothing more than two tier policing. I can see the policing levels for the last RL derby were beefed up, that was as a result of the RL investigation into the trouble and one of the 'punishments'. I couldn't imagine City getting away with something like that if a simliar incident happened during a FL game. We'd have been hit with a huge fine, possible points deduction, ground closure and convictions, bans, name and shame, and sentances for all those involved. Nothing of that sort happend after the RL derby. Also the RL authority blankly refuse to pay for policing. This was the case in Hull too up to quite recently, it may have changed for certain games but it a policy the RL authority stick too and in complete contrast to the FL ruling on the same subject. Indeed, it was an issue at City and our stadium recently when it was said that Hull City have a bigger bill for policing games than Arsenal. I accept that there is a need for a police presense at certain games but not on the scale we are currently seeing. I cannot remember the last time I saw serious crowd trouble at a City game but we get the police in numbers as though it was still the problem it was in the 70's and 80's, but at todays cost which must be colosall. Of course the stock answer to that is 'because the police are there' But on the odd game we see when there are no police ( or very few) in attendance, there is also no trouble. Next home game, 12.30 ko v Millwall, our police bill will be huge. it would be cheaper to give the few Millwall fans who will come £50 each to stop at home and pay for a live stream of the game so they can watch it for free at the Den.
It's nothing to do with Football League regulations, it's the law and though it's clearly unfair that football has to abide by different laws to all other sports, it's not going to change (if anything, it's more likely they'll ban alcohol during rugby games, than lift the ban at football games).
My meaning was you can drink at every other sporting event except football. So on that score it isnt a FL regulation but the law only applies to the FL, not non league for example.
Drinking in your seats is nothing to do with the police, you have said it yourself it is an FA ruling. Cricket, RL and RU allow it and there is very little disorder. The FA dont allow it and there is still loads of disorder. You can argue all day about why that is but the data shows that per 100 people there is far less trouble at any sport compared to football. Our game attracts drips of the highest order. You see them at every game. Grey sweatpants with black dress shoes, little man bag, 3 or 4 teeth missing and a roll up behind their ear. One clip and they're asleep but they are a pain in the arse all the same. Thankfully some of them are now in jail because their shopping trip in Hull the other saturday didnt end well for them The police have very little control over the insde of the stadium. If someone enters the pitch it is a stewards job to sort. If someone is drinking in their seat, or smoking, it is a stewards job. The only time they will get involved is if a law has been broken, such as throwing a punch, throwing a bottle or racism etc. Given some of the morons I see at City games I am quite glad they are not given access to alcohol in the seats, I quite enjoy watching the game and not worrying about what they are up to especially with kids around. In terms of scale there were very few for Wednesday on Wednesday, less than Bristol in my opinion, but I think Bristol numbers were high due to the racist bell end threats on the back of the recent trouble.
Bit of a damning generalisation of the calibre of people you choose to spend your Saturday afternoons with? By some of ours from the other Saturday?.,Have you got any credible links to that as I've only got 'John Honey' in his derby shirt.
Reportedly he's on the fabled spectrum, that picture was taken at Easter, for anyone offended I'd like to apologise, he lied. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Not sure about that "less trouble at any other sport" bit. That sounds like you're repeating the popular narrative of people who don't go to football. It's been mentioned on here many times over the years that ladies day at Beverley Races usually gets more arrests than an entire season of football at City, but generally people don't see it in the same way they see trouble at a "working class" sport. It's actually very rare there's any sort of bother at football.
