Diom wrote: Going to the stewards is one thing but the stewards need to be given the authority to eject the person spouting the abuse. I don't know if that is the case at the SG, as I have never been in a position where I've felt it was necessary to test it out. Anyone know?

We report anything to the main stewards and they make the decisions. We can ask someone to move on/leave if what theyre doing is annoying people

I think Shelflife's post sums things up best. If you are to shout something in, and this goes for all games, nothing personal or derogatory and try make it funny

Going to the stewards is one thing but the stewards need to be given the authority to eject the person spouting the abuse. I don't know if that is the case at the SG, as I have never been in a position where I've felt it was necessary to test it out. Anyone know?

wp_rathead wrote:

ConnachtCows wrote: Should people stop saying "Should have gone to Specsavers ref"? (Apart from it not being funny)

People who shout "Should have gone to Specsavers" are the ones who deserve abuse

Ha, my Dad started going to games this season, and shouted that at the first game of the season.
I warned him, everyone is allowed to say that once, and once only

ConnachtCows wrote: Should people stop saying "Should have gone to Specsavers ref"? (Apart from it not being funny)

People who shout "Should have gone to Specsavers" are the ones who deserve abuse

Fourdogs wrote:

ummm, wrote: ....... 24 hour Keeping up with the Kardashians marathon. But I feel that last one may be against the Geneva convention

This is not only against the Geneva convention but has been classified by the International Court of Human Rights as "Cruel and Unjust Punishment"

Only suitable as punishment for lads who don't get their round in.

Shelflife sets it out pretty much. Being vocal about your disagreement with an official is ok, anything that verges onto abuse is out.

ummm, wrote: ....... 24 hour Keeping up with the Kardashians marathon. But I feel that last one may be against the Geneva convention

This is not only against the Geneva convention but has been classified by the International Court of Human Rights as "Cruel and Unjust Punishment"

Abuse is never acceptable, be it towards a ref or a player.

Booing a decision isnt abuse imo, telling a ref to go to specsavers isnt either, callling him a blind fat c*$t is.

Anything of a personal nature is abuse and shouldnt be tolerated, if you hear it talk to the stewards and complain.

Look if youre going to shout something disparaging from the stands make it funny, you will still make your point and will raise a laugh.

Well there's stoning, thumbscrews, pointy sticks, hanging, tar & feathers or a 24 hour Keeping up with the Kardashians marathon. But I feel that last one may be against the Geneva convention

Homophobic,racist abuse, bad

General booing (bad decisions), shouting and being upset is fine
Should people stop saying "Should have gone to Specsavers ref"? (Apart from it not being funny)

People have paid money to watch a professional sport. If fans are being shortchanged, because someone they paid to watch is not trying, then I think abuse can be justified.
If I paid to go to a concert, and the band, only played for a short time, or gave a terrible performance, I'd have no problem booing

Everyone is prone to mistakes/lapses in concentration, and I dont believe abuse is justified in these instances.

www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/13/rf...-referee-nigel-owens

I remember before the Clan stand, had an gentleman who shouted bad enough stuff. No idea if he still comes to games now though.

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are how this can be clamped down on.