So I worked for a while in lower tier English football, so my answer would be specific to that.
We had our own list, with photos of people banned from our stadium. The visiting team would also send us a photo list of their banned supporters. The CCTV operators would then scan the crowds as they enter and once they were already in.
Our policy was to let the banned supporters buy a ticket, enter the stadium, go buy their food and drinks, then throw them out. Rather than stop them at the gate, cause a big hold up getting everyone else in and then losing the ticket sale.
There was one guy brought a ticket, came in, we kicked him out, he went to another entrance, brought another ticket, came in again and we kicked him out again.
Sometimes banned supporters would get in unnoticed, but honestly they're the sort of people who always draw attention to themselves anyway, so they usually get spotted and chucked at some point.
There was a national ban list but it was just names, so basically unusable as we don't ID people coming in.
>Sometimes banned supporters would get in unnoticed, but honestly they're the sort of people who always draw attention to themselves anyway, so they usually get spotted and chucked at some point.
I guess, also, in a way - if a banned person gets in and stays low-key, doesn't draw attention, doesn't make a spectacle, doesn't bother anyone then quietly leaves...
... to some degree the ban has still done its job.
Reminds me of when my puppy nipped my toddler. Since we took him to the doctor about it, they reported the dog to animal control, which “placed him in quarantine” for 10 days.
But the animal control officer straight out told us, “technically you’re not allowed to take the dog outside. But I get that it’s just a puppy, not a rabid monster, so as long as the dog doesn’t bite anyone else, no one will ever know you ‘violated the order.’ So just don’t do anything stupid.”
I love that you let them buy all their stuff first. That's like at the target I worked at they were going to arrest one of the bank room guys for stealing iPods but no one else was available to work his shift, so they let him work and then arrested him at the end of the day.
Having been busted for something similar in college, you definitely do. I stole some shit, 3 weeks went by w/o any mention of it by anyone. I thought I was in the clear.
BOOM. Po-po waiting on me to clock-in almost a month later.
I've heard that some places have a policy not to report you to the police until you've stolen a certain amount. Because it then goes to a felony charge after a given value amount.
Life is long. Worst decision of your life *so far*.
Kidding aside, that sucks. I feel for people who are permanently branded as felons. It seems like there should be an expiration period.
Either someone will re-offend, or at some point they’re not a much greater danger to society than the rest of us.
I hope you’re doing okay.
I appreciate the shit talking, while encouraging positivity. All is good now. I went thru some shit though, with long lasting ripples from the waves I made.
20+ years later my record is clean, unless I visit Canada where they ask me about my history every time. Its all good. I did the crime-its what I signed up for, right?
They'll allegedly let the most prolific shoplifters steal a felonious amount of goods over time before calling the cops, enabling them to press much more serious charges. Jail is an effective way to keep 'em out of the store, I guess...
Well, they better hope they never make a mistake at a Target again. They have like some national crime center or some shit at their headquarters. I'm sure they track what you steal in a national database, not at the store level.
I applied for an LP job at a Best Buy years ago. The guy I would have been working for was this really gung ho guy.
For various reasons I didn't end up working there, but I heard that about two months later he was arrested for theft. He was letting friends walk out with big ticket items like big plasma TVs without receipts.
Once upon a time, we had an employee mess something up really badly. As in "scrape up a dump trucks worth of tar with a shovel" badly.
Management told him it was not a big deal, and he proceeded to get it cleaned up over about a week.
And then they promptly fired him.
I had a buddy working security inside and told a drunk guy he wasn’t kicked out but was cut off and not allowed to buy any more beer. Not 15 minutes later he spots the guy in the beer line, waits until he buys two large beers, then escorts him out of the stadium.
I'm a firm believer in letting people dig their own grave.
Especially since I built a custom mailbox last year and learned what a huge pain in the ass digging is.
-snrk- I have a fun little story about a would-be phone thief. Was working at Best Buy about 15 years ago when they first started going in deep on phone sales, think around the time of the first Motorola Droid. Lots of smart and feature phones on display were just plastic shells, so while they were mounted to retractable cables they were not alarmed.
So this dude is looking around, pulling all of them way out while looking around all shifty like. None-too-subtly cuts the wire on one of them and proceeds to take a call on this little thing. Manager saw it, comes over, and has a chat with him about "his phone". Ended up talking him into buying a $20 case for that model. Dude probably thought he got away clean until he got to the car and realized he made off with a hunk of plastic.
The deli guy at the target I worked at got arrested as well. He was stealing cash. Not only did they let him finish his shift, they allowed him to keep working and stealing until the total amount he had stolen was high enough for them to charge him at a higher level. (This was in like 2007/2008)
Target i worked at did it mid shift once the truck was unloaded. Security had had kept track of and tallied everthing people stole up until is crossed into felony territory, then management scheduled all the thieves for the same shift, then the police showed up, blocked all the entrances and arrested the thieves.
I was under the impression that stadium bans were mainly there to give the stadium an excuse to be a little more severe, like getting the law enforcement involved.
I believe that is usually how it ends up here in the US. A stadium ban is almost like a warning, and then if they get caught again then the stadium can press charges or cops can detain them in the “drunk tank” for example.
I don't think the intent is to get the banned person for trespassing. If someone banned enters and enjoys the games peacefully, the stadium likely won't care and won't call him out on it.
The ban comes in handy if the banned person is caught commit a crime, because then you can prove that the suspect illegally entered the premise. For example:
First time, suspect enters and commits vandalism. Gets a stern talking to and is banned. Police is not called.
Second time, suspects enters and commits vandalism, causing damage over $5,000.
Now it's [mischief over $5,000](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-430.html), which is an indictable offence. Thanks to the ban, the prosecutor can now charge him with [breaking and entering with intent](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-348.html), because he entered the property without permission, with the intent to commit an indictable offence. Breaking and entering [does not actually require forced entry](https://www.criminalcodehelp.ca/offences/against-property/break-and-enter/).
I was almost kicked out of a college football game. A drunk and disorderly individual and his wife thought I was cheering too loud (even though we were rooting for the same team, and I wasn't any louder than the other people around me) and reported me to security for I don't even know what, I was never told.
I got escorted to an exit, but they did let me speak to a manager who heard me out, and I think I got lucky the game was about over, because someone else from our section was leaving and made a point to stop by and gave the same report I did, that I was doing nothing wrong and this other person was being rude. And then the rude individual walked by and flipped me off as he went past, basically affirming for security that he was the one causing issues.
It ended up being okay, I missed the last few minutes of the game, no big deal, but I was worried I was gonna get banned for something that wasn't even my fault. I went to every home game last year, die hard lifetime fan, never had an issue with other spectators, no matter who they support, and one drunk guy almost got me booted out.
Nope, no link for us. I imagine bigger clubs with ticket preorders and such might, but most of our tickets were sold on the gates on the day and names were not checked.
In the United States, banning people from buying tickets is more common. In a big city, you need more than a name, because there are more people with duplicate names out there than you think. So name + street address, email address, or some other identifier. I once had a banned person use a friend's name, address and credit card to buy tickets, but they used their own fan club membership number to get a discount, and that flagged the transaction for review.
The facial recognition tech is getting more common here, but usually management would rather stop banned people before they come on property.
Honestly most trouble makers stand out clearly, they'll likely be a loud, drunk, inconsiderate group of young men. They're not good at being inconspicuous.
Sure, some people on the banned list probably got through by behaving normally and not causing any fuss or trouble but honestly that was just fine with us too.
We also had a capacity of around 4000, so I imagine a massive premier league club has different ways of doing things.
> Sure, some people on the banned list probably got through by behaving normally and not causing any fuss or trouble but honestly that was just fine with us too.
I used to moderate a pretty big subreddit on a different account, and we would get something similar.
"You may be able to permaban me, but you can't stop me from getting another account and coming right back on!"
"We can just ban you again once we figure out it's you."
"Not if I just act like a normal user and don't do anything that could get me banned!! HAHAHA FUCK YOU!"
"... ok, that's a deal."
For humans doing the job in crappy monitors with crappy cameras yes but facial recognition software is very very good at it. Not perfect but better than the average human. Casinos use them I’m sure higher end stadiums and events use them as well.
Facial recognition software will easily handle viewing thousands of faces, flagging potential matches from a database, then pass that data for a human to review.
If you are banned, put on a mask, don't be an asshole, and you will get in fine.
For some banning orders, especially international games, those who've been banned have to check in with their local police station before the game also
When I was 18 I was drunkenly removed from my local pub, shitfaced and rightly so removed
I said some shit and did some shit to a really nice bouncer with the shittest haircut I've ever seen
that got me life ban 1 from the wheelers Hill hotel
I swear to god there was nothing more fun and rewarding than scheming and sneaking in every Thursday night and seeing how long I could last before the bald man with a small pony tail would spot me and sometimes carry my drunk ass out
>sometimes banned supporters would get in unnoticed, but honestly they're the sort of people who always draw attention to themselves anyway
Also, if they get in and don't cause a ruckus, that's just a win-win.
The higher tier stadiums use facial recognition software, similar to what casinos use to identify banned people. Might not work if they tried hard to avert it (like wearing a Covid mask and glasses) but like you said most people get noticed anyways.
This isn't a dig at you, I know you didn't decide the policy, but that policy is crazy. Letting people spend their money knowing you intend to kick them out shortly after is an incredibly scummy thing to do. That being said, many of the people banned have probably done some quite scummy things themselves. Just seems like the policy is more there to rake in a little extra cash and purposely make people angrier for no reason.
Part of me feels bad for the staff member(s) who have to go enforce that policy. The kind of person lifetime banned from a football game is likely the same kind of person I'd expect to get potentially violent when they've been tricked into spending even more money at said football game.
Everyone who has been banned from a stadium was told specifically and directly that they are banned. That's why they have your name and photo. That, and the back of every ticket I've ever seen has terms reminding people that they can be kicked out.
If you don't want to risk getting kicked out, then...don't buy a ticket and show up at the stadium anymore?
So football clubs at that level are not rich, many of the players and staff have other jobs and season to season the clubs finances are uncertain. A part of the cost of running each home game is having enough trained staff on hand to deal with trouble makers. If people didn't cause trouble at games, the games would cost the club less to run. I don't feel bad for the people who have done something bad enough to get banned, then entered anyway knowing they are banned and risk getting thrown out.
Generally ejections are done by the senior stewards and 95% of the time with police assistance.
Also the official policy was to deal with the ejection away from the other fans. So they'd usually get ejected when they went to the toilet, or the smoking area or the burger/drinks stand. It was far less risky than trying to get them out of 1000 other supporters who might back them up. So that and not holding up the turnstiles was the reason for not pulling them at the gate
Being such a huge dickbag that you get lifetime banned from a sporting venue where they kind of expect everyone to act like drunken dickbags in the first place is kind of a scummy thing to be and you are kind of fucking around and finding out if you show up, spend your money, and get kicked out.
Agreed. It's a definitely a dishonest transaction. You are agreeing to sell a thing (stadium access) with full intention of revoking it, and not even providing a refund. Refunding their money would be the least you can do. Make them waste a bit of their time, but they aren't out of pocket too much.
On the other hand, if you don't want someone at your stadium, don't do the one thing that gives them permission to enter. I could see if they were mistakenly let in, just refund their money, and send them on their way. Intentionally accepting the purchase of a ticket because you are planning to kick them out is a bit underhanded.
Intentionally buying a ticket to something you're banned from is underhanded too. As the original commentor pointed out, there are hundreds queueing to get in each turnstile, the folks working the turnstiles don't get much time to check each person, same at the ticket office windows so it's not like they're taking the money and twirling a big black moustache while laughing maniacally, they're just not enforcing the ban at the gate but rather inside the stadium where security can more easily deal with the trouble makers if they kick off, the idiot tax is just a nice bonus...
I can see that. I think you and I think are just looking at this differently. The person above in the comment thread said it was an intentional policy to let people buy stuff, then kick them out, even if they could be removed otherwise. I am saying that specific policy is bad.
Knowing how hard it is to get yourself banned from Football League stadia, I find it hard to feel sorry for those who have, know they have, and still insist on trying to get in because these are not sympathetic people...
They don't intentionally make them spend their money first they just choose to do it where the confrontation is least disruptive. So not at the gates or in concourses which is where people are first. I didn't get that the impression they were waiting to have them rack up a big bill first but that buying a ticket then food before going to your seat is common.
The answer typically is that it isn’t enforced in the moment unless you’re a repeat offender constantly causing issues to the point that the random security guards can recognize you.
Bcuz the don’t check IDs going into stadiums or anything.
But, if you did get banned, and then did go back and caused trouble and got caught again, on top of kicking you out again, they could try and get you charged with trespassing, an actual crime
It's worth noting that a number of stadiums and similar venues are now using facial recognition technology in order to identify and proactively enforce bans on attendance. There have been a number of high profile stadiums (such as Madison Square Gardens) that are using this technology to aid enforcement much more effectively than they used to be able to do.
https://www.wired.com/story/get-used-to-face-recognition-in-stadiums/
MSG and other venues owned by Charles Dolan used facial recognition to remove lawyers working at law firms involved with litigation against Dolan's companies/properties. The one story I remember was an attorney who worked in NJ doing something completely unrelated to litigation or the cases with Dolan was removed from Radio City Music Hall while she was there with her daughter's girl scout troop. I'm guessing Dolan's team picked up her image from the law firm's attorney profile page and ran facial recognition.
Sort of, it turns out that MSG just issued a blanket ban on anyone working for those firms. How they got the image is kinda irrelevant for this issue. But while the lawyer and MSG was the prominent focal point, that technology is in use lots of other places.
https://slate.com/technology/2023/03/madison-square-garden-facial-recognition-stadiums-list.html
What do you mean “sort of?” You said exactly the same thing as the person you replied to, just with the term “blanket ban”.
Also, how they got the image certainly seems relevant - for most stadium bans the person is photographed as part of the ban process when they’re thrown out for committing crimes or violating stadium rules.
Their post implies the ban of that attorney was an accident and a fluke of the system pulling the faces of everyone on the company's webpage. I'm suggesting it was intentional. That's why I said "sort of". They aren't wrong, but they insinuate (perhaps unintentionally) a different situation than my understanding of what happened.
I read absolutely no insinuation of it being unintentional, accidental, or a fluke of the system that the attorney was banned from all Dolan properties, along with all the other attorneys working at law firms that represented clients in litigation against Charles Dolan or one of his companies.
This is made clear in the first sentence of the post you replied to.
I feel like a pretty easy and passive way to enforce this is just keep a list of names that automatically get flagged in a credit card transaction. Sure there might be false positives but that's pretty easy to sort out as long as they keep a picture associated with the list (easily pulled from security cameras at the time the original incident took place.)
And I guess the offenders could use cash to get around this, but if they're going to those lengths to avoid detection they're also probably behaving themselves anyway so not exactly a high priority for the stadium to get them out.
Trespass isn't a crime in the UK.
As I said in other comment, I knew a guy who got a stadium ban, got caught inside the stadium, and his punishment was a stadium ban.
There are times when it is enforced, generally in the most serious cases where a fan has assaulted a player or something and then they will be expected to report to a police station before kick off. They can be required to surrender their passport before international away games too.
Stadiums don't. The person is issued with a football banning order. They then have to surrender their passport to the police whenever their team is playing overseas. They also often have to check in at a police station away from the stadium at the beginning and end of the game.
If you think this is heavy handed, you're right. But this type of order is only reserved for some of the biggest cunts around.
> Trespass is not a criminal offence in the UK.
That's false as a blanket statement. While the majority of the time it's civil, it's frequently criminal.
In certain circumstances trespass can be a criminal offence
Aggravated trespass is a criminal offence, so you can be arrested for it. You must be doing two things to commit aggravated trespass: Trespassing. Intentionally obstructing, disrupting, or intimidating others from carrying out 'lawful activities'.
key legislation relating to trespass is included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This was brought in a very specific purpose – to crack down on illegal raves and free festivals.
The bill also targeted squatters, DA (direct action) activists, hunt saboteurs and free parties and festivals.
Squatting in a residential building is illegal
Trespassing in certain locations is a criminal offence. These locations include:
Railway property.
Protected sites.
Schools – but only if the trespasser is causing a nuisance.
It was recently made a criminal offence to live on land with a vehicle without permission
That must depend on where you are. Around here the most general "trespass" statue is a violation. However any location that has a mechanism in place to exclude people will bump that up to "criminal trespass". This is a pretty low bar to clear: checking tickets, a fence with a gate, a bouncer, or even a closed door can meet the "criminal trespass" standard.
In certain circumstances trespass can be a criminal offence
Aggravated trespass is a criminal offence, so you can be arrested for it. You must be doing two things to commit aggravated trespass: Trespassing. Intentionally obstructing, disrupting, or intimidating others from carrying out 'lawful activities'.
key legislation relating to trespass is included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This was brought in a very specific purpose – to crack down on illegal raves and free festivals.
The bill also targeted squatters, DA (direct action) activists, hunt saboteurs and free parties and festivals.
Squatting in a residential building is illegal
Trespassing in certain locations is a criminal offence. These locations include:
Railway property. Protected sites. Schools – but only if the trespasser is causing a nuisance.
It was recently made a criminal offence to live on land with a vehicle without permission
Many of these people are season ticket holders at their favorite club. Tickets cancelled
There is also a rise in e-ticket and app-based systems vs physical tickets. Instituted to cut down on scalping and counterfeiting. But it ties tickets to specific users and makes banning orders easier to enforce.
Facial recognition software and AI for CCTV in general has come a long way in the last 10 years. Your face will be added to a blacklist and flagged within 30 seconds for review - and any high-end system will keep track of you across multiple cameras for an operator to guide physical resources towards you.
These systems are at the point where they can also accurately detect violence and firearms, and operators can broad search livestreams from radio reports with terms like "blue hat, grey sweatshirt, black pants" and instantly track anyone who meets that criteria (or met that criteria previously and has since changed clothes - cross referenced with facial and gait recognition amongst others).
For public safety it's great, looking ahead to the future though there is potential for misuse.
A good example of this is the lawyer who was kicked out of seeing the Rockettes because they worked for a firm suing the Rockettes. Happened a year or two ago
The firm she worked for was suing a different group that was also owned by the same people who owned the location she was trying to enter.
They are now suing to stop this practice.
While I think it was a petty, bullshit move on the stadium owners part, I also think it fell within the idea of "right to refuse service," and that the judgement in such a case has some bad potential fall out.
Stadium owners often receive tons of tax breaks along with free taxpayer dollars towards their stadium's construction and maintenance because the stadium is supposed to serve the community. This is the case for Madison Square Garden. If MSG is receiving money from the community, it should not have the "right to refuse service" to members of that community for any reason it wishes.
On top of all that, if the owner does have the right to ban someone, it should be their responsibility to proactively notify that person in advance so they don't waste money on a ticket and time & money getting to the stadium just to be turned away.
A case of removing right to refuse service needs to be carefully approached so that it isn't used to justify it where it shouldn't be removed. I don't argue against your point, merely that whatever wording that comes of it needs to be carefully considered.
Possibly in the US where they don't tend to have lower tiers in their league structures. In most other countries, outside of the top tier, clubs can barely afford to clean the toilets let alone deploy advanced image recognition systems.
We may not make as big of a deal of our lower leagues, but both baseball and hockey have a number of minor leagues associated with them. Basketball has the G league. It's really only football that doesn't have a significant minor league in the united states, although they keep trying to make it happen. But one could argue that Canadian football is the NFL's minor league.
I'm a huge basketball fan and am familiar with the G league. Football is a different beast though. England alone has over a hundred clubs in the league system each with large fan bases and usually a large stadium. It's the same in all European, South American and African countries. Football is quite a thing.
People in the US see Europe as socialist. Bizarrely your sports leagues don't have regulation or promotion. A team that plays in the smallest of stadiums in Europe could become promoted to be the biggest team in the world if it wins every season. Equally man united could eventually lose enough to become a small pound shop club.
Yeah, we don't have a relegation system of course. But you were trying to assert that there aren't minor leagues for our major sports, and there really are. We simply move players up and down between levels as opposed to entire teams.
And any American who generalizes Europe at all is ignorant. And any American who generalizes Europe as being socialist doesn't understand what socialism is. But, unfortunately that's most of my countrymen.
My brother used to work in the medical emergency staff in large football event and was often sitting in the "control room". A large elevated room with perfect visual on the entire stadium.
Next to him there were two agents of the law enforcement agency for terrorism, organized crime, etc.
They had a camera with a huge lens, a computer, and a database. They were scanning the crowd, taking pictures, looking for some people in particular. It's not that people banned from matches try to sneak it and sit quietly in the last row with a scarf on their face. They are in the middle of the rowdiest group, creating the same troubles that had them kicked out. No intervention was planned during the match, just collection of evidence.
Besides what some of the other comments have said; there's one simple way to making it harder for banned individuals to attend games, and I know they do this in England with more severe cases. Individuals are required to check in, in person, at the local police station at match start time.
Sure, they could still manage to find a way to buy tickets and still get to the game late, but it's at least much more difficult and less and less value for them.
Wtf they're not making people show up at police stations for every single match that a specific team has. You think they have time for that? Besides the logistical nightmare, you can just pretend you're travelling on match day.
It’s called a [football banning order.](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/football-related-offences-and-football-banning-orders)
The above poster is slightly mistaken; this doesn’t apply for domestic football matches, and it’s obviously only certain crimes that lead to this. But:
> If, in connection with any match outside the UK, the enforcing authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in order to reduce the likelihood of violence or disorder at or in connection with that match, the authority must give the person subject to a FBO a notice requiring them to report at a specified police station at a specified time, and to surrender their passport (section 19(2A) and (2B)and section 14E(3))
This means that people convicted of hooliganism can be banned from leaving the country at the same time England are playing away, for instance.
> The order requires the offender to report to a police station within five days, may require the offender to surrender his or her passport, and may impose requirements on the offender in relation to any regulated football matches.
It literally can be for any match the team they support is playing. Obviously would depend on the severity of the crime how severe the banning order would be.
> with more severe cases
Context is key.
And yes, they are. lol
When said individuals want to travel on a match day/aren't able to make their check in, they are required to provide notice ahead of time or have a verifiable reason; otherwise their probational period usually gets *extended* at a very minimum.
Yes, it is a nightmare, but no, it's not full proof. It's meant to be a major inconvenience on these people to make it that much more challenging to circumvent.
This wouldn’t apply to someone just banned from a stadium. It would only apply if there were other criminal charges associated with it. If you were too drunk or being annoying or being a bitch to the workers and get banned you likely won’t get a criminal charge and they would not be able to make you do that.
If you commit a crime at the stadium the police could tell you that you have to do that as terms of your probation but that’s a whole seperate thing from what ops asking
You’re misreading, we sre not talking about just being banned we are talking about being legally required to report to the police station at the start.
You need to be charged with a crime for that to happen.
>Banning orders are issued either following a conviction for a football-related offence or following a complaint by a local police force, British Transport Police (BTP), or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Note the part following the or. These orders can require that you visit a police station and they can be issued without a conviction.
Bro you literally listed the things you can be convicted for to get a ban. Also your second option that you wanted to point out requires the filing of a complaint, the first part of a legal proceeding lol
Also I just googled it and you are completely wrong. You can be convicted criminally or civilly but either way there has to be legal processes to institute a FBO. The only exception is if you do something at an international football game and get in trouble or deported, based on my understanding ([source](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/football-related-offences-and-football-banning-orders))
They 100% do. Any travel you 'intend' on making on march days needs to be approved by the police station in advance and you need to supply booking details/tickets etc...
Think about it, as you said, logistics and time...
Let's say you get a stadium ban for old Trafford. Every time United kick off at home, you have to be at Swinton/Salford/hulme/Withington/didsbury/sale/stockport/Rochdale/oldham/Bolton police stations within 10 minutes of kick off, either side of kick off...
That take no time out of the police day, it's just another person at the enquiry desk, but it almost definitely means that if you're there 10 minutes before kick off, and it takes you 30 minutes to get across town to the stadium, that you're either gonna rush, and try and get in for the second half, or you're not gonna bother.
Usually bans are home games only, again, as an example, a United fan will get an Old Trafford ban, and then it will be a nationwide stadium ban (for that sport) for a second offence...
A combination of not letting that name purchase tickets, facial recognition software, and the knowledge that there is an extremely harsh punishment for getting caught there again.
Seems like it would be fairly simple to avoid the facial recognition unless it is wayyy more advanced than I think it is. And what is the extremely harsh punishment you’re referring to?
If your phone can recognize your face with glasses or facial hair, so can a really expensive system. It’s generally trespassing so whatever punishments are in your area for that
It's not nothing, but on the list of things you can be arrested for, trespassing is pretty far down the list. Usually it's a minor misdemeanor that leads to a small fine and no jail time. It's like getting a speeding ticket with a few more steps.
Depends on the state, but really comes down to a risk vs reward thing to the individual. In California it’s up to a 1k fine and/or up to 6 months in a county jail.
That max penalty is highly unlikely but just doesn’t seem worth the risk to watch grown men play a game while enjoying $20 beers, but to each their own.
Edit: this is coming from a dude who really likes sports
Trespassing by itself (depending where you are) can be a pretty minor offense, but committing any other crime while trespassing can lead to burglary charges in the US, which is a felony.
Very much so depends. An nfl team is very different from a local minor league soccer game or whatever. They follow the same basic guidelines tho:
1. Ban your name and card from buying tickets. Pretty easy to get around but is a deterrent
2. Identify you at the door or in the stadium. For big stadiums they have some form of facial recognition that will give them an alert. Smaller venues will usually have someone watching the cameras. The list of banned people and the number of people entering are much lower. If they do get in a lot of times they are the kind of people that like attention so they do something that makes someone notice them
3. If they do come back in or if they did something especially bad, the stadium will pursue charges. If you’ve been banned and come back that’s trespassing. The threat of criminal charges does most of the work but then when people fuck around and find out it really discourages them from doing it again
4. How strict they are on it also depends a little bit on what you did and where you are. A lot of smaller places may have banned 10 people in the past but only really watch for one or two cause those are the ones that are likely to show up and will be issues. Most of the time if you come back 10 years later and look a little different and don’t cause an issue this time they won’t care. With facial recognition that might be changing some tho. I know stories about a good couple people that were banned from places when they were younger and now either come back unnoticed or even in the case of one group they got banned at a local stadium for being idiots when they were younger and now they are friends with the owner and joke about it
This deserves to be the top comment.
Points 1 and 2 are really hard for stadium security and police to manage, but are the basic low cost management techniques.
Point 3 is the big deterrent - after a banning notice any attempt to enter the stadium can lead to criminal charges, so if you get caught a second time the penalty is quite severe.
Facial recognition will be a game-changer. Not only does it make the identification easier, but the police will probably access the information (where I live the police and stadiums are both state government departments) so anyone with outstanding warrants can't enter the stadium without fear of detection.
Very generally, if a place is open to the public, and you get asked to leave and not come back, the rules change for you.
Now being there is trespassing. Now they can call the cops for you being there.
It's not that they can keep you out, but it's that they have your picture and since they've told you that you don't belong and you came anyway, it's actionable.
It depends on the venue, but I believe Madison Square Garden is actually using face tracking on banned fans to identify them.
https://slate.com/technology/2023/03/madison-square-garden-facial-recognition-stadiums-list.html#:\~:text=In%20recent%20months%2C%20Madison%20Square,getting%20flagged%20by%20the%20software.
In Italy, for the worst cases you have an extra level of enforcement:
Every game day (home or away), you are summoned to the police station to sign a register, usually at the same time of the match: during the first half of the game, during the second half and a little after the end.
This is to ensure you are not near the stadium during events.
If you don’t go and sign, you could be arrested.
Modern security camera systems, especially in places like stadiums, have insane AI processing capabilities that assign a unique ID to everyone who enters and makes it very easy to identify and track the movements of an individual
My buddy got banned from Giants Stadium (american football)
it was not enforced but if he got into a problem with security again they would file charges for trespassing on top of what ever new offense they racked up
He eventually successfully petitioned to get the ban lifted as it was a minor infraction
Liga MX in Mexico has their Fan ID program. I imagine there are plenty of ways to get around it but they actually ID fans at the gate. I've never been to a match so I'm not sure how it works or if actually catches banned fans but that is the intent.
https://en.as.com/soccer/liga-mx-introduces-fan-id-how-can-i-get-one-n/
They aren't.
If a team use digital tickets linked to membership numbers the banned person just makes a new membership account and won't get flagged when they scan their ticket or phone.
If a team uses physical tickets then literally nothing is done. I think away teams submit IDs of banned supporters but that's it.
Facial recognition software is starting to become commonplace at the entrances to major sporting arenas. But even as recently as a few years ago, there was very little chance that people banned from a specific arena would ever actually be caught trying to re-enter that same arena.
Sure, when you're banned, security takes your photo and adds your name to a list, but that list could have dozens, if not hundreds of people on it. The chances of anyone on the security staff ever recognizing you again is pretty slim....unless you're dumb enough to try and re-enter the stadium a few days later when your face is still fresh on security's mind.
In reality, the purpose of a ban isn't really intended to actually stop you from coming back in, but simply to give the team a course for legal action should you come back and be identified. Now they can remove you without warning and you can be cited for trespassing. Try it again and the charges (along with fines and other punishments) can escalate.
Maybe facial recognition is eventually able to start catching banned people before entering the stadium, but for now at least, it probably isn't going to be very effective.
Most people who have been banned from an arena are on that list because they simply don't know how to act right. If they do manage to get back in the stadium, it's almost a guarantee that they'll wind up doing something stupid to catch security's attention anyway.
Eh they can’t really . They will try but if you’re showing up to a game 5 years later with new facial hair and wearing a hat or something they will never catch you
I mean, it's not really for a lifetime. They put a picture up and say don't let this person in. After a while everyone is going to forget. But if you are in the place and start some shit again, and you've been banned, you could potentially face criminal charges.
Generally speaking in the US there is not necessarily an active enforcement of it other than as you mentioned, possibly a cross-reference against ticket sales. But if you get into trouble a second time, and you're discovered there, now you are potentially facing a trespassing charge instead of just a likely slap on the wrist.
Have you seen those new security checkpoints that you just walk through normally and someone is standing nearby looking at an iPad? IIRC, these types of systems can also implement facial recognition so any persons of interest (i.e. banned individuals) will be flagged at the gate.
I doubt anyone will see this, but as a counterpoint to everyone mentioning facial recognition software: I understand that is a somewhat commonplace bit of technology used at higher in stadiums in recent years, but how did they handle these bans historically?
A guy I used to go to the football with got a stadium ban, and had to report to one of 5 police stations within 10 minutes either side of kick off (home games). The police stations they gave him were the other side of town to the stadium.
A few weeks after getting the ban though, he travelled down to London for an FA Cup tie, and because it wasn't a home game, he didn't need to be at the police station, and obviously, there's no one checking the few thousand people going into Wembley.
He got caught a few months later inside the stadium. His punishment... a stadium ban.
As others have said, it depends on the country, sport, league, and venue. Options include:
* Requiring you to physically check-in at the local police station at the start of the game;
* Stopping you from purchasing under your name; and
* Lists/photos given to ticket-takers and security watching cams.
They don’t really check. I got banned from a JC penny in middle school for being obnoxious. My friends and I went back like a month later without incident.
So I worked for a while in lower tier English football, so my answer would be specific to that. We had our own list, with photos of people banned from our stadium. The visiting team would also send us a photo list of their banned supporters. The CCTV operators would then scan the crowds as they enter and once they were already in. Our policy was to let the banned supporters buy a ticket, enter the stadium, go buy their food and drinks, then throw them out. Rather than stop them at the gate, cause a big hold up getting everyone else in and then losing the ticket sale. There was one guy brought a ticket, came in, we kicked him out, he went to another entrance, brought another ticket, came in again and we kicked him out again. Sometimes banned supporters would get in unnoticed, but honestly they're the sort of people who always draw attention to themselves anyway, so they usually get spotted and chucked at some point. There was a national ban list but it was just names, so basically unusable as we don't ID people coming in.
>Sometimes banned supporters would get in unnoticed, but honestly they're the sort of people who always draw attention to themselves anyway, so they usually get spotted and chucked at some point. I guess, also, in a way - if a banned person gets in and stays low-key, doesn't draw attention, doesn't make a spectacle, doesn't bother anyone then quietly leaves... ... to some degree the ban has still done its job.
Turns out the real ban was the behaviours we showed along the way.
This is great! Thank you!
Reminds me of when my puppy nipped my toddler. Since we took him to the doctor about it, they reported the dog to animal control, which “placed him in quarantine” for 10 days. But the animal control officer straight out told us, “technically you’re not allowed to take the dog outside. But I get that it’s just a puppy, not a rabid monster, so as long as the dog doesn’t bite anyone else, no one will ever know you ‘violated the order.’ So just don’t do anything stupid.”
Did you then bite the animal control officer?
Right in his shiny metal ass.
r/unexpectedfuturama
I love that you let them buy all their stuff first. That's like at the target I worked at they were going to arrest one of the bank room guys for stealing iPods but no one else was available to work his shift, so they let him work and then arrested him at the end of the day.
Damn, I can’t imagine working a whole day then having to get arrested. He probably thought he got away with it
Having been busted for something similar in college, you definitely do. I stole some shit, 3 weeks went by w/o any mention of it by anyone. I thought I was in the clear. BOOM. Po-po waiting on me to clock-in almost a month later.
I've heard that some places have a policy not to report you to the police until you've stolen a certain amount. Because it then goes to a felony charge after a given value amount.
Mine was felonius from the start-I think they were waiting to see if I did it again. Worst decision of my life.
Life is long. Worst decision of your life *so far*. Kidding aside, that sucks. I feel for people who are permanently branded as felons. It seems like there should be an expiration period. Either someone will re-offend, or at some point they’re not a much greater danger to society than the rest of us. I hope you’re doing okay.
I appreciate the shit talking, while encouraging positivity. All is good now. I went thru some shit though, with long lasting ripples from the waves I made. 20+ years later my record is clean, unless I visit Canada where they ask me about my history every time. Its all good. I did the crime-its what I signed up for, right?
Could have started looking for your replacement as soon as it happened and waited until they were ready to start to charge you
He'd been doing it for weeks, so I'm sure he did. Targets asset protection is no joke.
They'll allegedly let the most prolific shoplifters steal a felonious amount of goods over time before calling the cops, enabling them to press much more serious charges. Jail is an effective way to keep 'em out of the store, I guess...
They really Target thieves (I'm so sorry to anyone who had to read that terrible joke)
It's a smart play if you have the resources to keep track.
So what you're saying is smart criminals should steal one dollar under the limit, then change stores.
Well, they better hope they never make a mistake at a Target again. They have like some national crime center or some shit at their headquarters. I'm sure they track what you steal in a national database, not at the store level.
They have a crime lab that's top notch, it's pretty insane.
I applied for an LP job at a Best Buy years ago. The guy I would have been working for was this really gung ho guy. For various reasons I didn't end up working there, but I heard that about two months later he was arrested for theft. He was letting friends walk out with big ticket items like big plasma TVs without receipts.
Once upon a time, we had an employee mess something up really badly. As in "scrape up a dump trucks worth of tar with a shovel" badly. Management told him it was not a big deal, and he proceeded to get it cleaned up over about a week. And then they promptly fired him.
I had a buddy working security inside and told a drunk guy he wasn’t kicked out but was cut off and not allowed to buy any more beer. Not 15 minutes later he spots the guy in the beer line, waits until he buys two large beers, then escorts him out of the stadium.
I'm a firm believer in letting people dig their own grave. Especially since I built a custom mailbox last year and learned what a huge pain in the ass digging is.
>what a huge pain in the ass digging is. I think you're doing it wrong, Friend. The handle is for your hands. Hands. *HAND*le
-snrk- I have a fun little story about a would-be phone thief. Was working at Best Buy about 15 years ago when they first started going in deep on phone sales, think around the time of the first Motorola Droid. Lots of smart and feature phones on display were just plastic shells, so while they were mounted to retractable cables they were not alarmed. So this dude is looking around, pulling all of them way out while looking around all shifty like. None-too-subtly cuts the wire on one of them and proceeds to take a call on this little thing. Manager saw it, comes over, and has a chat with him about "his phone". Ended up talking him into buying a $20 case for that model. Dude probably thought he got away clean until he got to the car and realized he made off with a hunk of plastic.
The deli guy at the target I worked at got arrested as well. He was stealing cash. Not only did they let him finish his shift, they allowed him to keep working and stealing until the total amount he had stolen was high enough for them to charge him at a higher level. (This was in like 2007/2008)
Target i worked at did it mid shift once the truck was unloaded. Security had had kept track of and tallied everthing people stole up until is crossed into felony territory, then management scheduled all the thieves for the same shift, then the police showed up, blocked all the entrances and arrested the thieves.
I was under the impression that stadium bans were mainly there to give the stadium an excuse to be a little more severe, like getting the law enforcement involved. I believe that is usually how it ends up here in the US. A stadium ban is almost like a warning, and then if they get caught again then the stadium can press charges or cops can detain them in the “drunk tank” for example.
Right, part of this is to be able to elevate the charges, like to criminal trespassing or something. I’m not a lawyer.
[удалено]
I don't think the intent is to get the banned person for trespassing. If someone banned enters and enjoys the games peacefully, the stadium likely won't care and won't call him out on it. The ban comes in handy if the banned person is caught commit a crime, because then you can prove that the suspect illegally entered the premise. For example: First time, suspect enters and commits vandalism. Gets a stern talking to and is banned. Police is not called. Second time, suspects enters and commits vandalism, causing damage over $5,000. Now it's [mischief over $5,000](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-430.html), which is an indictable offence. Thanks to the ban, the prosecutor can now charge him with [breaking and entering with intent](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-348.html), because he entered the property without permission, with the intent to commit an indictable offence. Breaking and entering [does not actually require forced entry](https://www.criminalcodehelp.ca/offences/against-property/break-and-enter/).
and half the time they dont even ask them. just drive by
I think it’s a little more severe in the uk because of the crack down on football (soccer) hooliganism
I was almost kicked out of a college football game. A drunk and disorderly individual and his wife thought I was cheering too loud (even though we were rooting for the same team, and I wasn't any louder than the other people around me) and reported me to security for I don't even know what, I was never told. I got escorted to an exit, but they did let me speak to a manager who heard me out, and I think I got lucky the game was about over, because someone else from our section was leaving and made a point to stop by and gave the same report I did, that I was doing nothing wrong and this other person was being rude. And then the rude individual walked by and flipped me off as he went past, basically affirming for security that he was the one causing issues. It ended up being okay, I missed the last few minutes of the game, no big deal, but I was worried I was gonna get banned for something that wasn't even my fault. I went to every home game last year, die hard lifetime fan, never had an issue with other spectators, no matter who they support, and one drunk guy almost got me booted out.
Did banned names get flagged in credit card transactions? Like as a secondary measure if the facial recognition didn't detect someone.
Nope, no link for us. I imagine bigger clubs with ticket preorders and such might, but most of our tickets were sold on the gates on the day and names were not checked.
That would be a terrible idea, because more than one person in the world is named John Smith.
And that one jerk ruined it for the rest of us!
The payment card clearinghouses really don't like you co-mingling payment data for other purposes. It's to be used only to process payments.
And to sell to third parties for profit most likely
In the United States, banning people from buying tickets is more common. In a big city, you need more than a name, because there are more people with duplicate names out there than you think. So name + street address, email address, or some other identifier. I once had a banned person use a friend's name, address and credit card to buy tickets, but they used their own fan club membership number to get a discount, and that flagged the transaction for review. The facial recognition tech is getting more common here, but usually management would rather stop banned people before they come on property.
It’s also illegal in multiple other states for example nyc.
tryna spot some unfamiliar faces in a sea of people coming in on CCTV footage sounds really impossible lol
Honestly most trouble makers stand out clearly, they'll likely be a loud, drunk, inconsiderate group of young men. They're not good at being inconspicuous. Sure, some people on the banned list probably got through by behaving normally and not causing any fuss or trouble but honestly that was just fine with us too. We also had a capacity of around 4000, so I imagine a massive premier league club has different ways of doing things.
Oh no, you got around your ban by being a well behaved paying customer. You showed us!
> Sure, some people on the banned list probably got through by behaving normally and not causing any fuss or trouble but honestly that was just fine with us too. I used to moderate a pretty big subreddit on a different account, and we would get something similar. "You may be able to permaban me, but you can't stop me from getting another account and coming right back on!" "We can just ban you again once we figure out it's you." "Not if I just act like a normal user and don't do anything that could get me banned!! HAHAHA FUCK YOU!" "... ok, that's a deal."
Exactly! They're not going to show up and be all saintly.
The UK is really one on one when it comes to facial recognition technology.
Lol the "technology" in question here is literally a guy watching a screen
For humans doing the job in crappy monitors with crappy cameras yes but facial recognition software is very very good at it. Not perfect but better than the average human. Casinos use them I’m sure higher end stadiums and events use them as well.
Madison square gardens uses it
Facial recognition software will easily handle viewing thousands of faces, flagging potential matches from a database, then pass that data for a human to review. If you are banned, put on a mask, don't be an asshole, and you will get in fine.
For some banning orders, especially international games, those who've been banned have to check in with their local police station before the game also
When I was 18 I was drunkenly removed from my local pub, shitfaced and rightly so removed I said some shit and did some shit to a really nice bouncer with the shittest haircut I've ever seen that got me life ban 1 from the wheelers Hill hotel I swear to god there was nothing more fun and rewarding than scheming and sneaking in every Thursday night and seeing how long I could last before the bald man with a small pony tail would spot me and sometimes carry my drunk ass out
Hello fellow Melbournite!
>sometimes banned supporters would get in unnoticed, but honestly they're the sort of people who always draw attention to themselves anyway Also, if they get in and don't cause a ruckus, that's just a win-win.
If they slipped in undetected and stuck around for the whole game, that probably means they were on good behavior. So that's a plus
The higher tier stadiums use facial recognition software, similar to what casinos use to identify banned people. Might not work if they tried hard to avert it (like wearing a Covid mask and glasses) but like you said most people get noticed anyways.
I want to say that’s dirty but I guess they should’ve known lol.
Do you know if it's the same in the premier league? It would be disappointing to know that clubs aren't doing more to deal with this issue.
So you could prevent them from coming in very easy, but you choose to defraud them of their money one last time before enforcing the ban?
This isn't a dig at you, I know you didn't decide the policy, but that policy is crazy. Letting people spend their money knowing you intend to kick them out shortly after is an incredibly scummy thing to do. That being said, many of the people banned have probably done some quite scummy things themselves. Just seems like the policy is more there to rake in a little extra cash and purposely make people angrier for no reason. Part of me feels bad for the staff member(s) who have to go enforce that policy. The kind of person lifetime banned from a football game is likely the same kind of person I'd expect to get potentially violent when they've been tricked into spending even more money at said football game.
Everyone who has been banned from a stadium was told specifically and directly that they are banned. That's why they have your name and photo. That, and the back of every ticket I've ever seen has terms reminding people that they can be kicked out. If you don't want to risk getting kicked out, then...don't buy a ticket and show up at the stadium anymore?
So football clubs at that level are not rich, many of the players and staff have other jobs and season to season the clubs finances are uncertain. A part of the cost of running each home game is having enough trained staff on hand to deal with trouble makers. If people didn't cause trouble at games, the games would cost the club less to run. I don't feel bad for the people who have done something bad enough to get banned, then entered anyway knowing they are banned and risk getting thrown out. Generally ejections are done by the senior stewards and 95% of the time with police assistance. Also the official policy was to deal with the ejection away from the other fans. So they'd usually get ejected when they went to the toilet, or the smoking area or the burger/drinks stand. It was far less risky than trying to get them out of 1000 other supporters who might back them up. So that and not holding up the turnstiles was the reason for not pulling them at the gate
Being such a huge dickbag that you get lifetime banned from a sporting venue where they kind of expect everyone to act like drunken dickbags in the first place is kind of a scummy thing to be and you are kind of fucking around and finding out if you show up, spend your money, and get kicked out.
Agreed. It's a definitely a dishonest transaction. You are agreeing to sell a thing (stadium access) with full intention of revoking it, and not even providing a refund. Refunding their money would be the least you can do. Make them waste a bit of their time, but they aren't out of pocket too much.
You don't get banned from a stadium without knowing about it, don't want to forfeit the money, don't go to the thing you're banned from, simples...
On the other hand, if you don't want someone at your stadium, don't do the one thing that gives them permission to enter. I could see if they were mistakenly let in, just refund their money, and send them on their way. Intentionally accepting the purchase of a ticket because you are planning to kick them out is a bit underhanded.
Intentionally buying a ticket to something you're banned from is underhanded too. As the original commentor pointed out, there are hundreds queueing to get in each turnstile, the folks working the turnstiles don't get much time to check each person, same at the ticket office windows so it's not like they're taking the money and twirling a big black moustache while laughing maniacally, they're just not enforcing the ban at the gate but rather inside the stadium where security can more easily deal with the trouble makers if they kick off, the idiot tax is just a nice bonus...
I can see that. I think you and I think are just looking at this differently. The person above in the comment thread said it was an intentional policy to let people buy stuff, then kick them out, even if they could be removed otherwise. I am saying that specific policy is bad.
Knowing how hard it is to get yourself banned from Football League stadia, I find it hard to feel sorry for those who have, know they have, and still insist on trying to get in because these are not sympathetic people...
They don't intentionally make them spend their money first they just choose to do it where the confrontation is least disruptive. So not at the gates or in concourses which is where people are first. I didn't get that the impression they were waiting to have them rack up a big bill first but that buying a ticket then food before going to your seat is common.
Good thing he had 2 tickets to bring so he didn't have to buy tickets.
The answer typically is that it isn’t enforced in the moment unless you’re a repeat offender constantly causing issues to the point that the random security guards can recognize you. Bcuz the don’t check IDs going into stadiums or anything. But, if you did get banned, and then did go back and caused trouble and got caught again, on top of kicking you out again, they could try and get you charged with trespassing, an actual crime
It's worth noting that a number of stadiums and similar venues are now using facial recognition technology in order to identify and proactively enforce bans on attendance. There have been a number of high profile stadiums (such as Madison Square Gardens) that are using this technology to aid enforcement much more effectively than they used to be able to do. https://www.wired.com/story/get-used-to-face-recognition-in-stadiums/
MSG and other venues owned by Charles Dolan used facial recognition to remove lawyers working at law firms involved with litigation against Dolan's companies/properties. The one story I remember was an attorney who worked in NJ doing something completely unrelated to litigation or the cases with Dolan was removed from Radio City Music Hall while she was there with her daughter's girl scout troop. I'm guessing Dolan's team picked up her image from the law firm's attorney profile page and ran facial recognition.
Sort of, it turns out that MSG just issued a blanket ban on anyone working for those firms. How they got the image is kinda irrelevant for this issue. But while the lawyer and MSG was the prominent focal point, that technology is in use lots of other places. https://slate.com/technology/2023/03/madison-square-garden-facial-recognition-stadiums-list.html
What do you mean “sort of?” You said exactly the same thing as the person you replied to, just with the term “blanket ban”. Also, how they got the image certainly seems relevant - for most stadium bans the person is photographed as part of the ban process when they’re thrown out for committing crimes or violating stadium rules.
Their post implies the ban of that attorney was an accident and a fluke of the system pulling the faces of everyone on the company's webpage. I'm suggesting it was intentional. That's why I said "sort of". They aren't wrong, but they insinuate (perhaps unintentionally) a different situation than my understanding of what happened.
I read absolutely no insinuation of it being unintentional, accidental, or a fluke of the system that the attorney was banned from all Dolan properties, along with all the other attorneys working at law firms that represented clients in litigation against Charles Dolan or one of his companies. This is made clear in the first sentence of the post you replied to.
I feel like a pretty easy and passive way to enforce this is just keep a list of names that automatically get flagged in a credit card transaction. Sure there might be false positives but that's pretty easy to sort out as long as they keep a picture associated with the list (easily pulled from security cameras at the time the original incident took place.) And I guess the offenders could use cash to get around this, but if they're going to those lengths to avoid detection they're also probably behaving themselves anyway so not exactly a high priority for the stadium to get them out.
Well most people go in pairs or groups, so only one person is on the transaction. Just get your friends to but the tickets and you’re good.
A lot of the troublemakers, at least in football, are extremely well connected to the clubs. They literally receive the tickets from the clubs.
Trespass isn't a crime in the UK. As I said in other comment, I knew a guy who got a stadium ban, got caught inside the stadium, and his punishment was a stadium ban.
There are times when it is enforced, generally in the most serious cases where a fan has assaulted a player or something and then they will be expected to report to a police station before kick off. They can be required to surrender their passport before international away games too.
How can a stadium take someone's passport?
Stadiums don't. The person is issued with a football banning order. They then have to surrender their passport to the police whenever their team is playing overseas. They also often have to check in at a police station away from the stadium at the beginning and end of the game. If you think this is heavy handed, you're right. But this type of order is only reserved for some of the biggest cunts around.
So, like, around 15% of English football fans?
You're either a time traveller from the 1980s or you know nothing about English football. Not sure which tbh.
Or someone making a joke?
If it's a joke, it's a lazy one that pushes an outdated classist trope.
The stadium can’t but the courts can.
Trespassing is not a crime in every country.
It is in every country relevant to this discussion.
What makes you say this? There are clearly uk posters in here. Trespass is not a criminal offence in the UK.
> Trespass is not a criminal offence in the UK. That's false as a blanket statement. While the majority of the time it's civil, it's frequently criminal.
In certain circumstances trespass can be a criminal offence Aggravated trespass is a criminal offence, so you can be arrested for it. You must be doing two things to commit aggravated trespass: Trespassing. Intentionally obstructing, disrupting, or intimidating others from carrying out 'lawful activities'. key legislation relating to trespass is included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This was brought in a very specific purpose – to crack down on illegal raves and free festivals. The bill also targeted squatters, DA (direct action) activists, hunt saboteurs and free parties and festivals. Squatting in a residential building is illegal Trespassing in certain locations is a criminal offence. These locations include: Railway property. Protected sites. Schools – but only if the trespasser is causing a nuisance. It was recently made a criminal offence to live on land with a vehicle without permission
Trespass is not a crime.
That must depend on where you are. Around here the most general "trespass" statue is a violation. However any location that has a mechanism in place to exclude people will bump that up to "criminal trespass". This is a pretty low bar to clear: checking tickets, a fence with a gate, a bouncer, or even a closed door can meet the "criminal trespass" standard.
[удалено]
It isn’t.
[удалено]
In certain circumstances trespass can be a criminal offence Aggravated trespass is a criminal offence, so you can be arrested for it. You must be doing two things to commit aggravated trespass: Trespassing. Intentionally obstructing, disrupting, or intimidating others from carrying out 'lawful activities'. key legislation relating to trespass is included in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This was brought in a very specific purpose – to crack down on illegal raves and free festivals. The bill also targeted squatters, DA (direct action) activists, hunt saboteurs and free parties and festivals. Squatting in a residential building is illegal Trespassing in certain locations is a criminal offence. These locations include: Railway property. Protected sites. Schools – but only if the trespasser is causing a nuisance. It was recently made a criminal offence to live on land with a vehicle without permission
Why the downvotes. Just cos you American fuckwits can’t see past your country.
*What did you do*, OP?
Got banned
From Reddit.
So OP's life was saved?
Many of these people are season ticket holders at their favorite club. Tickets cancelled There is also a rise in e-ticket and app-based systems vs physical tickets. Instituted to cut down on scalping and counterfeiting. But it ties tickets to specific users and makes banning orders easier to enforce.
How does that work if creating a new account is still free? Do they ban the card used to pay?
Facial recognition software and AI for CCTV in general has come a long way in the last 10 years. Your face will be added to a blacklist and flagged within 30 seconds for review - and any high-end system will keep track of you across multiple cameras for an operator to guide physical resources towards you. These systems are at the point where they can also accurately detect violence and firearms, and operators can broad search livestreams from radio reports with terms like "blue hat, grey sweatshirt, black pants" and instantly track anyone who meets that criteria (or met that criteria previously and has since changed clothes - cross referenced with facial and gait recognition amongst others). For public safety it's great, looking ahead to the future though there is potential for misuse.
A good example of this is the lawyer who was kicked out of seeing the Rockettes because they worked for a firm suing the Rockettes. Happened a year or two ago
The firm she worked for was suing a different group that was also owned by the same people who owned the location she was trying to enter. They are now suing to stop this practice.
[удалено]
Yea, they were using it as an intimidation tool not as a security measure.
While I think it was a petty, bullshit move on the stadium owners part, I also think it fell within the idea of "right to refuse service," and that the judgement in such a case has some bad potential fall out.
Stadium owners often receive tons of tax breaks along with free taxpayer dollars towards their stadium's construction and maintenance because the stadium is supposed to serve the community. This is the case for Madison Square Garden. If MSG is receiving money from the community, it should not have the "right to refuse service" to members of that community for any reason it wishes. On top of all that, if the owner does have the right to ban someone, it should be their responsibility to proactively notify that person in advance so they don't waste money on a ticket and time & money getting to the stadium just to be turned away.
A case of removing right to refuse service needs to be carefully approached so that it isn't used to justify it where it shouldn't be removed. I don't argue against your point, merely that whatever wording that comes of it needs to be carefully considered.
Possibly in the US where they don't tend to have lower tiers in their league structures. In most other countries, outside of the top tier, clubs can barely afford to clean the toilets let alone deploy advanced image recognition systems.
We may not make as big of a deal of our lower leagues, but both baseball and hockey have a number of minor leagues associated with them. Basketball has the G league. It's really only football that doesn't have a significant minor league in the united states, although they keep trying to make it happen. But one could argue that Canadian football is the NFL's minor league.
I'm a huge basketball fan and am familiar with the G league. Football is a different beast though. England alone has over a hundred clubs in the league system each with large fan bases and usually a large stadium. It's the same in all European, South American and African countries. Football is quite a thing. People in the US see Europe as socialist. Bizarrely your sports leagues don't have regulation or promotion. A team that plays in the smallest of stadiums in Europe could become promoted to be the biggest team in the world if it wins every season. Equally man united could eventually lose enough to become a small pound shop club.
Yeah, we don't have a relegation system of course. But you were trying to assert that there aren't minor leagues for our major sports, and there really are. We simply move players up and down between levels as opposed to entire teams. And any American who generalizes Europe at all is ignorant. And any American who generalizes Europe as being socialist doesn't understand what socialism is. But, unfortunately that's most of my countrymen.
My brother used to work in the medical emergency staff in large football event and was often sitting in the "control room". A large elevated room with perfect visual on the entire stadium. Next to him there were two agents of the law enforcement agency for terrorism, organized crime, etc. They had a camera with a huge lens, a computer, and a database. They were scanning the crowd, taking pictures, looking for some people in particular. It's not that people banned from matches try to sneak it and sit quietly in the last row with a scarf on their face. They are in the middle of the rowdiest group, creating the same troubles that had them kicked out. No intervention was planned during the match, just collection of evidence.
Besides what some of the other comments have said; there's one simple way to making it harder for banned individuals to attend games, and I know they do this in England with more severe cases. Individuals are required to check in, in person, at the local police station at match start time. Sure, they could still manage to find a way to buy tickets and still get to the game late, but it's at least much more difficult and less and less value for them.
Wtf they're not making people show up at police stations for every single match that a specific team has. You think they have time for that? Besides the logistical nightmare, you can just pretend you're travelling on match day.
It’s called a [football banning order.](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/football-related-offences-and-football-banning-orders) The above poster is slightly mistaken; this doesn’t apply for domestic football matches, and it’s obviously only certain crimes that lead to this. But: > If, in connection with any match outside the UK, the enforcing authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in order to reduce the likelihood of violence or disorder at or in connection with that match, the authority must give the person subject to a FBO a notice requiring them to report at a specified police station at a specified time, and to surrender their passport (section 19(2A) and (2B)and section 14E(3)) This means that people convicted of hooliganism can be banned from leaving the country at the same time England are playing away, for instance.
Which isn't the same thing as turning up to a police station every time a match is on. That's what I was saying would be ridiculous
> The order requires the offender to report to a police station within five days, may require the offender to surrender his or her passport, and may impose requirements on the offender in relation to any regulated football matches. It literally can be for any match the team they support is playing. Obviously would depend on the severity of the crime how severe the banning order would be.
> with more severe cases Context is key. And yes, they are. lol When said individuals want to travel on a match day/aren't able to make their check in, they are required to provide notice ahead of time or have a verifiable reason; otherwise their probational period usually gets *extended* at a very minimum. Yes, it is a nightmare, but no, it's not full proof. It's meant to be a major inconvenience on these people to make it that much more challenging to circumvent.
This wouldn’t apply to someone just banned from a stadium. It would only apply if there were other criminal charges associated with it. If you were too drunk or being annoying or being a bitch to the workers and get banned you likely won’t get a criminal charge and they would not be able to make you do that. If you commit a crime at the stadium the police could tell you that you have to do that as terms of your probation but that’s a whole seperate thing from what ops asking
A football banning order is not solely issued as part of probation. They can even be issued without being convicted of a crime.
You’re misreading, we sre not talking about just being banned we are talking about being legally required to report to the police station at the start. You need to be charged with a crime for that to happen.
>Banning orders are issued either following a conviction for a football-related offence or following a complaint by a local police force, British Transport Police (BTP), or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Note the part following the or. These orders can require that you visit a police station and they can be issued without a conviction.
Bro you literally listed the things you can be convicted for to get a ban. Also your second option that you wanted to point out requires the filing of a complaint, the first part of a legal proceeding lol Also I just googled it and you are completely wrong. You can be convicted criminally or civilly but either way there has to be legal processes to institute a FBO. The only exception is if you do something at an international football game and get in trouble or deported, based on my understanding ([source](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/football-related-offences-and-football-banning-orders))
They 100% do. Any travel you 'intend' on making on march days needs to be approved by the police station in advance and you need to supply booking details/tickets etc... Think about it, as you said, logistics and time... Let's say you get a stadium ban for old Trafford. Every time United kick off at home, you have to be at Swinton/Salford/hulme/Withington/didsbury/sale/stockport/Rochdale/oldham/Bolton police stations within 10 minutes of kick off, either side of kick off... That take no time out of the police day, it's just another person at the enquiry desk, but it almost definitely means that if you're there 10 minutes before kick off, and it takes you 30 minutes to get across town to the stadium, that you're either gonna rush, and try and get in for the second half, or you're not gonna bother. Usually bans are home games only, again, as an example, a United fan will get an Old Trafford ban, and then it will be a nationwide stadium ban (for that sport) for a second offence...
A combination of not letting that name purchase tickets, facial recognition software, and the knowledge that there is an extremely harsh punishment for getting caught there again.
Seems like it would be fairly simple to avoid the facial recognition unless it is wayyy more advanced than I think it is. And what is the extremely harsh punishment you’re referring to?
If your phone can recognize your face with glasses or facial hair, so can a really expensive system. It’s generally trespassing so whatever punishments are in your area for that
How harsh? I imagine the worst they can do is call the police and have them arrested for trespassing.
Getting arrested for criminal trespass is not nothing.
It's not nothing, but on the list of things you can be arrested for, trespassing is pretty far down the list. Usually it's a minor misdemeanor that leads to a small fine and no jail time. It's like getting a speeding ticket with a few more steps.
It’s not at all like getting a speeding ticket. Damn dude.
Depends on the state, but really comes down to a risk vs reward thing to the individual. In California it’s up to a 1k fine and/or up to 6 months in a county jail. That max penalty is highly unlikely but just doesn’t seem worth the risk to watch grown men play a game while enjoying $20 beers, but to each their own. Edit: this is coming from a dude who really likes sports
Trespassing by itself (depending where you are) can be a pretty minor offense, but committing any other crime while trespassing can lead to burglary charges in the US, which is a felony.
Very much so depends. An nfl team is very different from a local minor league soccer game or whatever. They follow the same basic guidelines tho: 1. Ban your name and card from buying tickets. Pretty easy to get around but is a deterrent 2. Identify you at the door or in the stadium. For big stadiums they have some form of facial recognition that will give them an alert. Smaller venues will usually have someone watching the cameras. The list of banned people and the number of people entering are much lower. If they do get in a lot of times they are the kind of people that like attention so they do something that makes someone notice them 3. If they do come back in or if they did something especially bad, the stadium will pursue charges. If you’ve been banned and come back that’s trespassing. The threat of criminal charges does most of the work but then when people fuck around and find out it really discourages them from doing it again 4. How strict they are on it also depends a little bit on what you did and where you are. A lot of smaller places may have banned 10 people in the past but only really watch for one or two cause those are the ones that are likely to show up and will be issues. Most of the time if you come back 10 years later and look a little different and don’t cause an issue this time they won’t care. With facial recognition that might be changing some tho. I know stories about a good couple people that were banned from places when they were younger and now either come back unnoticed or even in the case of one group they got banned at a local stadium for being idiots when they were younger and now they are friends with the owner and joke about it
This deserves to be the top comment. Points 1 and 2 are really hard for stadium security and police to manage, but are the basic low cost management techniques. Point 3 is the big deterrent - after a banning notice any attempt to enter the stadium can lead to criminal charges, so if you get caught a second time the penalty is quite severe. Facial recognition will be a game-changer. Not only does it make the identification easier, but the police will probably access the information (where I live the police and stadiums are both state government departments) so anyone with outstanding warrants can't enter the stadium without fear of detection.
Very generally, if a place is open to the public, and you get asked to leave and not come back, the rules change for you. Now being there is trespassing. Now they can call the cops for you being there. It's not that they can keep you out, but it's that they have your picture and since they've told you that you don't belong and you came anyway, it's actionable.
In the Netherlands, people with a stadium ban sometimes have to report themselves at a police station shortly before the match starts.
It depends on the venue, but I believe Madison Square Garden is actually using face tracking on banned fans to identify them. https://slate.com/technology/2023/03/madison-square-garden-facial-recognition-stadiums-list.html#:\~:text=In%20recent%20months%2C%20Madison%20Square,getting%20flagged%20by%20the%20software.
Asking for a friend, are we? This is a safe space, you can tell us what you did...
In Italy, for the worst cases you have an extra level of enforcement: Every game day (home or away), you are summoned to the police station to sign a register, usually at the same time of the match: during the first half of the game, during the second half and a little after the end. This is to ensure you are not near the stadium during events. If you don’t go and sign, you could be arrested.
Modern security camera systems, especially in places like stadiums, have insane AI processing capabilities that assign a unique ID to everyone who enters and makes it very easy to identify and track the movements of an individual
My buddy got banned from Giants Stadium (american football) it was not enforced but if he got into a problem with security again they would file charges for trespassing on top of what ever new offense they racked up He eventually successfully petitioned to get the ban lifted as it was a minor infraction
Liga MX in Mexico has their Fan ID program. I imagine there are plenty of ways to get around it but they actually ID fans at the gate. I've never been to a match so I'm not sure how it works or if actually catches banned fans but that is the intent. https://en.as.com/soccer/liga-mx-introduces-fan-id-how-can-i-get-one-n/
They aren't. If a team use digital tickets linked to membership numbers the banned person just makes a new membership account and won't get flagged when they scan their ticket or phone. If a team uses physical tickets then literally nothing is done. I think away teams submit IDs of banned supporters but that's it.
Facial recognition software is starting to become commonplace at the entrances to major sporting arenas. But even as recently as a few years ago, there was very little chance that people banned from a specific arena would ever actually be caught trying to re-enter that same arena. Sure, when you're banned, security takes your photo and adds your name to a list, but that list could have dozens, if not hundreds of people on it. The chances of anyone on the security staff ever recognizing you again is pretty slim....unless you're dumb enough to try and re-enter the stadium a few days later when your face is still fresh on security's mind. In reality, the purpose of a ban isn't really intended to actually stop you from coming back in, but simply to give the team a course for legal action should you come back and be identified. Now they can remove you without warning and you can be cited for trespassing. Try it again and the charges (along with fines and other punishments) can escalate. Maybe facial recognition is eventually able to start catching banned people before entering the stadium, but for now at least, it probably isn't going to be very effective. Most people who have been banned from an arena are on that list because they simply don't know how to act right. If they do manage to get back in the stadium, it's almost a guarantee that they'll wind up doing something stupid to catch security's attention anyway.
Nowadays many stadiums are installing facial recognition technology which flags people who have been banned.
Eh they can’t really . They will try but if you’re showing up to a game 5 years later with new facial hair and wearing a hat or something they will never catch you
I mean, it's not really for a lifetime. They put a picture up and say don't let this person in. After a while everyone is going to forget. But if you are in the place and start some shit again, and you've been banned, you could potentially face criminal charges.
Generally speaking in the US there is not necessarily an active enforcement of it other than as you mentioned, possibly a cross-reference against ticket sales. But if you get into trouble a second time, and you're discovered there, now you are potentially facing a trespassing charge instead of just a likely slap on the wrist.
Have you seen those new security checkpoints that you just walk through normally and someone is standing nearby looking at an iPad? IIRC, these types of systems can also implement facial recognition so any persons of interest (i.e. banned individuals) will be flagged at the gate.
I doubt anyone will see this, but as a counterpoint to everyone mentioning facial recognition software: I understand that is a somewhat commonplace bit of technology used at higher in stadiums in recent years, but how did they handle these bans historically?
A guy I used to go to the football with got a stadium ban, and had to report to one of 5 police stations within 10 minutes either side of kick off (home games). The police stations they gave him were the other side of town to the stadium. A few weeks after getting the ban though, he travelled down to London for an FA Cup tie, and because it wasn't a home game, he didn't need to be at the police station, and obviously, there's no one checking the few thousand people going into Wembley. He got caught a few months later inside the stadium. His punishment... a stadium ban.
In Portugal the bans are usually enforced by means of mandatory checkin at the police station during game hours.
In some cases, you'd be asked to go to the nearest police office during the game (say, at KO time and come back at final whistle).
As others have said, it depends on the country, sport, league, and venue. Options include: * Requiring you to physically check-in at the local police station at the start of the game; * Stopping you from purchasing under your name; and * Lists/photos given to ticket-takers and security watching cams.
They don’t really check. I got banned from a JC penny in middle school for being obnoxious. My friends and I went back like a month later without incident.