Forum Topic

Rugby returns to the Gtech

Those London Irish fans just never give up...

This is why… https://t.co/VycypHgjZw— Football Away Ends (@FBAwayEnds) October 19, 2026

Andrew OSullivan ● 3d24 Comments

What idiocy and a not particularly well executed drop kick.

This will probably result in restrictions on access to roof terraces for residents during games which will remove a nice extra benefit of living in these blocks. 

Jeremy Parkinson ● 3d

It wasn't actually a drop kick, but the participant(s) deserve far more than a cuff round the ear

Denis I. Fox ● 2d

Haha! "Very dangerous"? "Call in the police"? There's surely better use of police time on real crime.

Robert Fish ● 2d

Just high jincs was it Robert?A football dropped from a high enough drop can cause significant structural or neurological trauma.

Denis I. Fox ● 2d

Denis is quite right. The terminal velocity of a rugby ball would be around 60mph. At that speed the force would easily cause a concussion or break a bone if it struck someone.

The ball appears to have fallen just short of the field of play but if the kicker's technique had been more competent the ball would have travelled an extra 20 or 30 yards with a high chance of hitting a player if the game was at that end of the pitch. What happened was undoubtedly a crime and shouldn't be laughed off.

It is doubly important that this person is arrested because, as I understand it this was a clip released on social media for clicks. If people can do this with impunity then there is a risk it becomes a viral trend until inevitably someone gets seriously hurt.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 2d

It never ceases to amaze me just how stupid people can be. Sorry, Robert, this includes you.But to post something with your face on top of a building that can be located (mind you, your phone will locate you anyway) and then trace that back to anyone gaining entry into the building and it shouldn't take much to catch all of these idiots.

David Lesniak ● 1d

You're happy to grasp the opportunity to criticise me and add your redundant two penn'orth to what several others have already said. There's no argument but that the kinetic energy of the ball falling from a great height could cause concussion if it landed on the head of a player. But are we to readily criminalise a thoughtless fool? Should our understaffed and under-funded police be pursuing this whilst failing to tackle other more serious and prevalent crimes?

Robert Fish ● 1d

Obviously yes. 

Not only, as you acknowledge, could this have caused a serious injury, a report has been made to the police and they have ample evidence for a prosecution and probably the means to find the culprit relatively easily. The only person responsible for making this person a criminal is himself and if he isn't prosecuted, as has already been pointed out, there will be copy cats.

Andrew OSullivan ● 1d

Oh, Robert. Robert, Robert, Robert, Robert.Responses like yours always make me think what would you do if the tables were turned. If it were you that lost sight? Had a brain bleed? Got pelted in the chest at that precise moment between beats that causes death? Breaks an arm? Needs stitches. Or if it were one of your mates or loved ones. And what would you're reaction be to anyone who then said "nothing to see here."

David Lesniak ● 23h

Yet our 'understaffed and under-funded' police were able to mobilise two officers at SOTG to warn someone for tweeting about that inept Green Councillor.

Richard Schofield ● 23h

WHEN YOU ARE IN A HOLE, STOP DIGGING.Robert, take heed.

Denis I. Fox ● 21h

Consider the actual risk of this bolt from the blue hitting anyone on the bonce. The idiot could see that all the players were well away from the area where the ball dropped to ground. Consider also that the total area of the tops of the heads of all the players on both sides and the officials would be less than 0.1% of the area of the pitch. What the kicker did was reprehensible, but you chaps are wildly exaggerating the risk. Finally, tell me this: if the police catch up with this chap, what will the charge be?

Robert Fish ● 19h

Sorry - missed out a zero. It's less than 0.01%. Feel free to check my arithmetic.

Robert Fish ● 18h

Robert, what about the people always present outside the perimeter of a packed stadium?Doesn't their health matter to you?As for the charge(s) against this buffoon, I would expect a hefty fine in accordance with his mental health.

Denis I. Fox ● 18h

Come on, Dennis. He kicked it onto the pitch. It was recovered from the pitch by a steward. If it had fallen short of the pitch, would the spectators not have been protected by the roof of the stand? And as for your hefty fine, that would be for what offence?

Robert Fish ● 17h

Maybe they should have thought of this before they built all those flats so close to a functioning football pitch, and got round the guidelines by providing a rooftop 'open space' with a few planting boxes and a bit of green carpet! What are you expected to do up there if not kick a ball about?!

Peter Evans ● 17h

A fool can see from the trajectory of the ball it is falling well short of the greensward.Tell me Robert, do you believe someone arrested for drink driving should get away with a penalty fine, or worse, simply because they avoided causing an accident?That hole is getting deeper Robert.

Denis I. Fox ● 15h

The hole is all yours, Dennis. I ask you a serious question, and you answer with a wholly irrelevant false equivalence. The scale of risk is totally different.

Robert Fish ● 15h

1. Public Nuisance (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022)In the UK, creating a risk of injury to the public in a shared space is a serious offence. Launching a heavy object blindly from a multi-storey height into a crowded stadium directly violates this.• The Charge: Intentionally or recklessly causing a risk of serious harm, or causing serious annoyance or inconvenience to the public.• The Penalty: Since being codified into statutory law, a conviction for public nuisance can carry significant penalties, up to a maximum of 10 years in prison, a hefty fine, or both.2. Football (Offences) Act 1991This specific act regulates behaviour directly impacting football matches and stadium safety.• The Charge: Under Section 2 of the Act, it is a criminal offence to throw (or launch) any object onto the playing area or into the spectator stands without lawful authority or excuse.• The Penalty: A fine up to £1,000 and, crucially, a mandatory Football Banning Order (FBO), which would ban the individual from attending any regulated football match in the UK for a period of 3 to 10 years.3. Culpable and Reckless Conduct / Section 39 Assault (By Recklessness)Even if nobody was hurt, the law prosecutes the risk that was created. A rugby ball dropped or kicked from a significant height gathers enough force to cause severe head or neck injuries if it strikes an unsuspecting fan, steward, or player.• The Charge: Reckless endangerment or causing a direct risk of injury to others.• The Penalty: Can result in community service, heavy fines, or short-term imprisonment depending on how the Magistrates' Court or Crown Court views the severity of the danger.Additional Non-Criminal RepercussionsBeyond police prosecution, the individual faces two other major non-criminal legal actions:• Civil Trespass: The rooftop of Underwood House is residential/community private property. If the individual did not have lawful access to the roof, the building's management or owners can take civil legal action for trespass.• Lifetime Stadium Ban: Separately from the courts, Brentford FC has the right to issue an immediate, lifetime ban from the Gtech Community Stadium and share that data with the Premier League to blacklist the individual nationwide.

Julian Pavey ● 14h

Diligent research, Julian - close, but no cigar! I doubt the CPS would sanction prosecution under any of your 3 headings.1. Public Nuisance. The clue is in the name. It has to have a public dimension. Endangering just a few people doesn't constitute a public nuisance, because the offence requires an effect on the public or a class of the public rather than a few isolated individuals.2. The Football (Offences) Act. The Act is intended to deal with disorderly conduct by persons attending football matches. Section 2 would not apply to our joker, because he's not attending a designated football match.3. Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Intentionally or recklessly causing someone to apprehend immediate unlawful violence or intentionally or recklessly applying unlawful force to another person? I don't think so.Reckless endangerment in English law is generally confined to specific situations - e.g. driving, workplace accidents, child abuse. Our rugby ball kicking joker may have been thoughtless, but it would be extremely difficult to prove his knowledge of the risk, such that his conduct might be said to be reckless.  The test for recklessness in English law is subjective. The prosecution must prove that the defendant was personally aware of a risk of dangerous consequences.For all these reasons the police will be scratching their heads as to what charge they could bring.

Robert Fish ● 12h

1. Statutory Laws & Safety Requirements• Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975: Under this act, Gtech Community Stadium is legally designated as a sports ground requiring a formal General Safety Certificate. Managed under the oversight of the Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA), the certificate mandates that the club must take all practical steps to ensure matchday safety for fans, staff, and players.• Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974: This law dictates that sports clubs commit a criminal offence if they fail to take "reasonably practicable steps" to protect spectators from external and internal health and safety risks.• Criminal Prosecution: External interference that compromises the safety of a match—such as throwing or launching objects into the stadium bowl—violates public safety laws.

Julian Pavey ● 11h

But surely if you kicked or dropped a rugby ball from the top of a tall building into an area which has which has unseen people,you would be committimg an offence.It's behaviour likely cause injury,possible death  or at least damage to property I would think.

Keith Iddon ● 11h

My feeling on this is that the young man responsible would be ill-advised to employ Robert Fish and Co to act on his behalf in this case. He would be better off with someone with a basic understand of the law. The CPS has a smorgasbord of potential charges to be brought here. The severity of the crime is not usually the primary determining factor as to whether they proceed but the strength of the evidence. Surely Robert is not now going to tell us that the case against this idiot is weak. His maths skills don't appear to be much better than his legal acumen. I don't know how he got his 0.01% probability of the ball hitting someone but anyone who has been around a training session when someone boots the ball towards a group not participating knows that the chances of it hitting someone are remarkably high. Robert's lack of sympathy for the players here suggests that he is not someone who is familiar with live sport particularly the frenetic pace of the Premier League. In the footage the play is moving away from the kicker but there is over a six second gap from the kick to landing. In that time it was highly possible that there could have been a switch in play towards the ball. If you assume a better contact or a following wind that brought the ball into the third of the pitch in which play was concentrated, ChatGPT puts the chance of a player being hit directly between 5-15% and 5-20% after one bounce when the ball would still have sufficient momentum to do serious damage.

While we can argue around the edges about probabilities, it isn't really relevant. Denis made the key point earlier on — the fact that only a tiny proportion of people who drive drunk hit pedestrians isn't a viable defence.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 3h

What I find curious is Robert refuses to acknowledge the risk to the general public.Before Julian posted umpteen reasons why this kick was legally problematic I thought "reckless endangerment." At least that's the term in the states. That can be caused by any number of things toward any one or any number of people.

David Lesniak ● 26m