Strict Liability

[ICTChris]

Following the SFA dropping charges regarding the crowd trouble at the Scottish cup final there's going to be a lot of talk about strict liability, the framework that allows for governing bodies to hold clubs directly accountable for their fans behaviour.  UEFA use this model and have fined Celtic several times for their fans behaviour during European ties.

What do people think about this model for Scottish football?  I can see the attraction of it but I also think that fundamentally it's kind of unfair.  If I turn up to a Caley game and scream racist abuse or punch someone, what could the club have done to prevent it?  If I break a law then I can be arrested, charged and tried.  The club can ban me from the ground if they see fit.  If all protections are in place then what more can be done?

On the other hand, we've seen clubs duck sorted out real problems in their support for a long time and maybe this would give the impetuous to do so.  

Thoughts?  Please use this thread for discussing the idea of strict liability and we can keep all the pointing, laughing and seething-Rangers-ing to the cup final thread. 

[Dindeleux]

If Lee Wallace hadn't been all Lee Wallace about it the police would never have been involved.

Also, if Rangers fans were able to accept defeat like men none of this would've happened.

Thanks,

Dindz

[RandomGuy.]

It should depend on the violation

[Spikethedee]

Not sure what the specifics of the plans are, but a reasonable solution would seem to be that clubs get a couple of warnings/suspended punishments for the first couple of minor-ish offences and then get severely hammered after that. Gives clubs a chance to show they have done all they can to identify/ban troublemakers, rather than banning them after the first time that, as you say, they could do little to predict or prevent.

Points penalties should be the way to go, would get the point across better than financial ones...

[Monkey Tennis]

I'm totally in favour of strict liability.

Penalties imposed under it need to be sensible of course, as suggested above, initially suspended and thereafter cranked up, obviously in relation to the severity of the offence and the reasonable efforts a club might have made to avert it.

I think though that we have an oddly tolerant attitude towards sectarian behaviour in our game and that the only way to seriously change that would be to have the clubs themselves required to stop tolerating/encouraging it.

 

[glasgow-sheep]

Yes often the clubs can't directly prevent the actions of individuals or even groups of fans but surely part of the idea of strict liability is that fans realise they are hurting their club who get punished for their behaviour so adjust their behaviour and stop being dicks.

All in favour as long as the governing bodies actually have the balls to use the rules and don't shy away from them if it turns out one particularly vocally obnoxious club get the majority of punishments.

[7-2]

Strict Liability means clamping down on the bigot brothers. It'll just never happen in Scotland. Ever.

[kennysmassiveego]

At the recent Killie Rangers fixture the "Rangers songbook" was clearly in evidence and was recorded by BT sport . In the post match discussion on these boards it was debated how to stop this , and who do you pick out of a crowd on 4/5/10/50,000 fans. Identification was mentioned and the difficulty at non televised matchs. . If all stewards and police were wearing body cameras this would surely go some way to solving this problem . There will be some liberal minded who no doubt will scream civil liberties etc etc but until we grasp the nettle and start dishing out appropriate punishment some set of fans will continue to disregard any decent laws that are meant to stop their anti social behaviour. That's why I hope all the morons caught on social media at the cup final are dealt with severely in due course and if it can be proven that the SFA failed to recognise that the invasion could have been prevented , that might set a precedent to certain clubs .

[williemillersmoustache]

Following the dropping of all charges relating to the Scottish Cup Final expect some introspection followed by a working committee which will eventually publish suggestions along the lines of:

• Better use of existing legislation
• A study on the use of the likes of yer social medias and that
• Fan engagement will be mentioned then ignored
• Drone Technology
• Colt Teams
• 3D Printing
• More Internets

 

 

[Stellaboz]

Cue all these legal experts with blue tinted specs telling us why Hibs should still be hammered but their own club and fans are innocent parties.

[forameus]

 

12 hours ago, glasgow-sheep said:

Yes often the clubs can't directly prevent the actions of individuals or even groups of fans but surely part of the idea of strict liability is that fans realise they are hurting their club who get punished for their behaviour so adjust their behaviour and stop being dicks.

All in favour as long as the governing bodies actually have the balls to use the rules and don't shy away from them if it turns out one particularly vocally obnoxious club get the majority of punishments.

Would they though?  I imagine if you're thick enough to be doing something bad enough that the club would get punished, you're unlikely to really care too much.  Or, perhaps worse, you'll see it as some kind of persecution complex and come back with something worse.  That's the problem with something like this for me, it's unlikely to stop the worst ones in my opinion.

[CityDave]

Its a difficult one, supporters are responsible themselves for the way they behave not the clubs. People should take responsibility for their own actions its no one else's fault but their own.

The problem is with a blame culture very much encouraged by our media there has to be someone to point the finger at and clubs are an easy lazy target instead of finding the troublemakers and getting down to the root of the problem.

For example the toilets at Celtic Park being vandalised, some of this was shown on social media so those seen doing damage to the facilities should be found and charged by police for criminal damage, made to pay up and or do community service for the club who's toilets they smashed up. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with that and leave their own club to pick up the tab.

If the clubs agree to pay compensation to each other to cover such damage then that's fine that's between them. Do football clubs insure against deliberate damage caused by football supporters?

Another point is 'Do football clubs do enough to ensure the there is no trouble at games?' again its down to the individuals concerned, football clubs can only do so much and if fans want to behave in a manner that is regarded as anti social then they let their club down, but its down to the individual supporter to show responsibility not just for their own actions, but also because their actions reflect on the football club they support to everyone else.

I can't see it working in this country if it was trialed, the SFA's bluff will be quickly called out by you know who and the difference there is those two clubs are not important to UEFA as they are to our own governing body. I would worry about this strict liability (restrictive liberty) being used selectively.

The other side of it, what happens when clubs supporters run onto the pitch say after the last game of the season to celebrate a league title, lets say for example Alloa or Brechin had been neck and neck right up to the last game in the L1 or Buckie Thistle in the HL top now with 10 wins out of 10 but who have had a poor time of it up to this season or how about East Kilbride if they won the LL for the first time? Now would the supporters of these clubs cause their clubs to be heavily fined by the governing bodies even if its all in high spirits of the moment and there is no goading or ill feeling towards the rival support? And how would this work further down the ladder such as in the Juniors?

 

 

 

[thisGRAEME]

13 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I'm totally in favour of strict liability.

Penalties imposed under it need to be sensible of course, as suggested above, initially suspended and thereafter cranked up, obviously in relation to the severity of the offence and the reasonable efforts a club might have made to avert it.

I think though that we have an oddly tolerant attitude towards sectarian behaviour in our game and that the only way to seriously change that would be to have the clubs themselves required to stop tolerating/encouraging it.

This is kind of where I sit as well, with the final point is particularly pertinent, I think. There seems to be a kind of 'Well, really, what can we do?' attitude from the clubs, the polis and the Government, which, to an extent, I can kind of understand. I've thought for ages, that if you were to hit the clubs with points deductions and what have you, if it's an actual title race, are you going to act the c**t and cost your team the league?

[Jimmy85]

The reason this debate has reared its head again is absolutely magnificent. The blue bigots are fucking fuming that Hibs haven't been punished for the actions of their fans, on the greatest day in Scottish football history, yet they completely refuse to acknowledge that their own club actually vetoed an attempt by the governing bodies to introduce strict liability. 

 

It reminds me of the time McCoist went bleating to the press to complain about a punishment his club specifically asked for.

 

They really are the most hilarious company in the history of the universe. 

[Benjamin_Nevis]

 

Would they though?  I imagine if you're thick enough to be doing something bad enough that the club would get punished, you're unlikely to really care too much.  Or, perhaps worse, you'll see it as some kind of persecution complex and come back with something worse.  That's the problem with something like this for me, it's unlikely to stop the worst ones in my opinion.

All Rangers and Celtic fans care about is how they measure up against the other arsecheek. Literally nothing else matters to them. If they know their arsehole behaviour will benefit their rivals via punishment, they'll stop immediately.

[TheCelt67]

2 hours ago, CityDave said:

Its a difficult one, supporters are responsible themselves for the way they behave not the clubs. People should take responsibility for their own actions its no one else's fault but their own.

The problem is with a blame culture very much encouraged by our media there has to be someone to point the finger at and clubs are an easy lazy target instead of finding the troublemakers and getting down to the root of the problem.

For example the toilets at Celtic Park being vandalised, some of this was shown on social media so those seen doing damage to the facilities should be found and charged by police for criminal damage, made to pay up and or do community service for the club who's toilets they smashed up. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with that and leave their own club to pick up the tab.

If the clubs agree to pay compensation to each other to cover such damage then that's fine that's between them. Do football clubs insure against deliberate damage caused by football supporters?

Another point is 'Do football clubs do enough to ensure the there is no trouble at games?' again its down to the individuals concerned, football clubs can only do so much and if fans want to behave in a manner that is regarded as anti social then they let their club down, but its down to the individual supporter to show responsibility not just for their own actions, but also because their actions reflect on the football club they support to everyone else.

I can't see it working in this country if it was trialed, the SFA's bluff will be quickly called out by you know who and the difference there is those two clubs are not important to UEFA as they are to our own governing body. I would worry about this strict liability (restrictive liberty) being used selectively.

The other side of it, what happens when clubs supporters run onto the pitch say after the last game of the season to celebrate a league title, lets say for example Alloa or Brechin had been neck and neck right up to the last game in the L1 or Buckie Thistle in the HL top now with 10 wins out of 10 but who have had a poor time of it up to this season or how about East Kilbride if they won the LL for the first time? Now would the supporters of these clubs cause their clubs to be heavily fined by the governing bodies even if its all in high spirits of the moment and there is no goading or ill feeling towards the rival support? And how would this work further down the ladder such as in the Juniors?

 

 

 

That's how I view it.  If any fan wants to sing bigoted songs/wave provocative banners/vandalise a stadium, basically act like an arsehole, then they should be held accountable.  Yes, the club should be initially fined by the authorities but the club should then hit the bampot with the bill.  That being said, certain clubs could and certainly should be doing more to crackdown on such behaviour.  From a Celtic point of view whenever something like this happens I am fed up with the press release giving it the usual about how wonderfully behaved the majority of us are etc, etc.  I would rather the club went down the road of focusing on the problematic section of our support in an attempt to eradicate it.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

40 minutes ago, Jimmy85 said:

The reason this debate has reared its head again is absolutely magnificent. The blue bigots are fucking fuming that Hibs haven't been punished for the actions of their fans, on the greatest day in Scottish football history, yet they completely refuse to acknowledge that their own club actually vetoed an attempt by the governing bodies to introduce strict liability. 

 

It reminds me of the time McCoist went bleating to the press to complain about a punishment his club specifically asked for.

 

They really are the most hilarious company in the history of the universe. 

^^^ Middling size team found

 

[DA Baracus]

If this came in you just know that Sevco (and probably Celtic) fans would claim that folk doing shit were actually opposition fans doing it to try and tarnish their club.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

If this came in you just know that Sevco (and probably Celtic) fans would claim that folk doing shit were actually opposition fans doing it to try and tarnish their club.

...like they've never played that card in the past, of course.

[shiltrum]

17 hours ago, Spikethedee said:

Not sure what the specifics of the plans are, but a reasonable solution would seem to be that clubs get a couple of warnings/suspended punishments for the first couple of minor-ish offences and then get severely hammered after that. Gives clubs a chance to show they have done all they can to identify/ban troublemakers, rather than banning them after the first time that, as you say, they could do little to predict or prevent.

Points penalties should be the way to go, would get the point across better than financial ones...

Agreed a point deduction system should/would make them think before they act. Although there will be some who just don't want to conform and see it as a infringement on their right to protest or raise issues outwith football.