I wonder how many drunk fans were refused entry to the ground and how many fans were refused the sale of beer inside the ground I bet the figure is 0

Spot on This ^^

Unfortunately the RFL have no other options.

Widnes have handled this very well, good to see. No one is to blame but the merkins who couldn't control themselves. Punishing Widnes does nothing to stop these merkins, they are so thick and care so little about the club that they wond give a hoot if Widnes are fined, banned from the cup, play behind closed doors etc.
My own club has similiar s and it it is unfair to punsh the club or the 99% of decent fans due tot he actions of a handful. The law shoud deal with them, they should be banned from any RL match for the next ten years (hard to enforce I know) and publicly shamed in the Widnes area media.

Exactly!
It is actually a criminal offence to sell alcohol to someone whom is drunk or is buying alcohol for someone whom is drunk but you're bang on the money, how many places turn down someone whom is clearly pished as a fart.
Maybe the police should be looking more closely at the sale of alcohol before/during matches and ensure that everyone concerned understands the law with regard the sale of alcohol and their responsibility from a social POV as well as safeguarding fans whom come to watch the rugby not get tanked up



It is illegal to knowingly sell alcohol, or attempt to sell alcohol, to a person who is drunk. It is also illegal to allow alcohol to be sold to someone who is drunk.

Those who could face prosecution include:

anyone who sells alcohol at the premises

the premises licence holder and premises supervisor

any member or officer of a members club who could have stopped the sale

the premises user where there is a temporary events notice

Disagree, for reasons summarised earlier.

How on earth do you know? I doubt it very much. If there were 100 on the pitch, none of whom you have ever met, and yet you claim they are "so thick" and you leap to the astonishing conclusion that any punishment, they "won't give a hoot" about? You are just making rash claims with zero basis in fact, you have no evidence whatsoever for this. Also history shows us that offenders of this general type, if up before the courts, are not of a predictable "type". Some are sure to have good jobs and good character references. Any caught will almost certainly claim "it was out of character" and mitigate with some account or other of what a good family man he normally is etc.

In a way it is, but as I said, it is the only thing the RFL can do, and it is Widnes' problem unfortunately.

They have not done much at all that the law would see as a crime, assault cases excepted. I doubt any more than a couple will ever face a court. Bans will follow from the club and maybe RFL but as I said, these are surely ineffectual as they can't be policed.

Not exactly. I didn't see anybody on the TV images who could remotely be described as "drunk" within the meaning of licensing law.

Let's just say that in the section where I sat there was no restriction on obviously drunken people being served alcohol; infact I commented that it was illegal to be served in such a state yet the bar did fantastic business...money talks!

FA is right.

The important word isn't "football" but "designated", and that is designated by statutory instrument. So far, only association football has been so designated.

It coiuld, however, constitute a public order offence, either under section 5 (behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress), section 4A (behaviour intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress), or section 4 (threat of violence or likely to provoke violence).

Also, "assault" means apprehension of a battery (i.e., a strike), hence the distinction between common assault and common assault by beating.

This is not a comment on any potential criminality committed by those on the pitch. It is not an offence per se to go on the pitch, but doing so could be construed as committing a public order offence, depending on the context of the invasion.

Does the RFL not have responsibilty for all this as it was their event?

Who was responsible for the staffing levels of stewards as it proved they were wholly inadequate. Where were the police?
So who had the responsibility for the security at Leigh? The RFL, the Leigh club, the police or or is there a match day co-ordinating effort?
Either way punishing the Widnes club seems very unfair.
Widnes had no security control at the event and most certainly no control over those invading the pitch.
The RFL, Stewarding and the Police surely were the ones with the control, or lack of it, it is they who should take full responsibility, not the Widnes club.
Prosecute the individuals yes, the Widnes club, no!

I agree in principle BUT some of these individuals have no doubt caused trouble on other Widnes away trips - a look at You Tube videos shows other examples of yobbery. At least one of those on the old videos looks as though he could have been the same person as was heavily involved at the semi. So, you could argue that if the Widnes club had weeded these people out some time ago then there would have been no need for security at the semi.

Stewarding/policing levels would have to be risk assessed. I would guess they based it on a sell out crowd but with v little expectation of any trouble which would seem a sensible thing to do given the low level of disorder amonst RL fans when compared to football fans.