Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: naughty football fans
Message-ID: <1865@hao.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 15:40:41 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1865
Posted: Tue Nov 19 15:40:41 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Nov-85 21:47:28 EST
References: <479@bdmrrr.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 38

> If fans want to interfere with the football being played, that's their right.

  I do not agree. The fans should have the right to do pretty much ANYTHING
they want EXCEPT interfere with the game.

> Without the fans, football is NOTHING.  The fans pay all of the salaries.

  Untrue. More revenue BY FAR comes from network television rights than
from ticket sales.

> If Seattle fans get extra entertainment out of disrupting a football game with
> their noise, what's wrong with that?  That's why they paid to sit in the 
> Kingdome. 

  What about the rights of the fans watching on TV? 

> The snowball incident is a little more severe.  This is not because the 
> snowball distracted Cavanaugh, but because it was dangerous to the players.
> Injuries caused by fan disruption are not forgivable.  

  Where do you draw the line?

> Several Michigan
> plays were disrupted because of noise.  What was the final score you ask?
> Michigan 48 Minnesota 7.  You can't tell me that fan noise played a major part
> in this game.

  I don't believe it ever does. In any game, you can always point to MANY 
critical plays; even if fan interference DOES cause a critical play to go
for a particular team, I don't think it's accurate to blame the outcome of
the game on any single play.

--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
       		        !hao!woods

CSNET: woods@NCAR  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY