Strict Liability

[capt_oats]

"I am not sure that punishing a club like Hamilton Academical for a fan who throws a punch at a Motherwell fan is the way forward."

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37530941?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Erm, wut?

[HibeeJibee]

He was on Sportsound before 3pm today which is where the quote will have come from.

Basically he was keeping to the script... and that's meant semi-literally: Tom English observed that he and Mike Mulraney had used almost the same phrases in dismissing the idea, which he suggested had been put together by SPFL, in particular regarding strict liability having failed in other European countries but not being prepared to name any specifically.

Script goes along the line of "when people break the law it's up to the police", "when they break the ground regulations it's up to the stewards and clubs", "only a few clubs are big enough for any problem to be larger than individual troublemakers anyway", "keep politics out of sport".

Each of those points can be argued favourably, of course - and as I said before smaller clubs will be against, as they'd fear being made an example of as an alternative to addressing 'real issues' at bigger clubs.

[capt_oats]

Yeah, I get the line of argument and tbh I see the logic but it just seemed an amusingly specific example for the chairman of a club to give.

Also "a club like Hamilton Academical" implies a distinction between them and other clubs.

[Virtual Insanity]

Scottish football needs a strong Hamilton fan. 

[Virtual Insanity]

I'm all for strict liability. Fans and clubs are perfectly happy to promote the 'fans are the lifeblood of the club' line until it doesn't suit them anymore. If clubs were getting punished seriously for fan behaviour, they would actually start taking it seriously (as would reasonable fans). As it is, asking clubs to take responsibility it a bit like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. It needs to be imposed by the SFA. I'd really rather it wasn't imposed by the government and we know UEFA/FIFA take a dim view of that but they seem to be the only ones speaking any sense on the issue. 

[mjw]

Yeah, I get the line of argument and tbh I see the logic but it just seemed an amusingly specific example for the chairman of a club to give.

Also "a club like Hamilton Academical" implies a distinction between them and other clubs.

Maybe he was outside the East Stand turnstiles a fortnight ago,he'd have seen the very thing he described actually happen.

[HibeeJibee]

8 minutes ago, Virtual Insanity said:

I'm all for strict liability. Fans and clubs are perfectly happy to promote the 'fans are the lifeblood of the club' line until it doesn't suit them anymore. If clubs were getting punished seriously for fan behaviour, they would actually start taking it seriously (as would reasonable fans). As it is, asking clubs to take responsibility it a bit like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. It needs to be imposed by the SFA. I'd really rather it wasn't imposed by the government and we know UEFA/FIFA take a dim view of that but they seem to be the only ones speaking any sense on the issue. 

Which can only be done by clubs voting for it at SFA AGM. Although an awful lot of power - more than ever before - rests with SFA Board nowadays, this remains a club rule change.

Has it been explained how the government would propose to impose it? Can you make a company (club) responsible for the actions of people who claim to "support" it, and fine them money if those people do things which are not in themselves illegal (or which are illegal but weren't acted on by police)? Can they pass laws saying that things called football leagues, must deduct things called points, in things called league tables?

With some safeguards I'd be for strict liability myself: if I thought it would be used uniformly and without fear or favour.

[The_Craig]

Hamilton needs a fan. 

FTFY

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Yeah, I get the line of argument and tbh I see the logic but it just seemed an amusingly specific example for the chairman of a club to give.

Also "a club like Hamilton Academical" implies a distinction between them and other clubs.

It's a while since I read the figures but I'm sure Hamilton have accounted for a disproportionately high share of the offences recorded under the Offensive Behaviour at Football act.

Maybe the comment was driven by that data

[parsforlife]

Don't think we need to go quite as far as strict liability tbh, just need to stop believing celtic/sevco are taking 'all reasonable steps' when it's clearly not true.

[7-2]

2 hours ago, parsforlife said:

Don't think we need to go quite as far as strict liability tbh, just need to stop believing celtic/sevco are taking 'all reasonable steps' when it's clearly not true.

I doubt anyone other than the bigots and their apologists actually believe it.

[ICTChris]

I see James Dornan has been talking about this again.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/scottish-clubs-must-pay-actions-9646297

[Swello]

Any sort of strict liability would need to command the confidence of the clubs and (more importantly,) the supporters that it will be applied consistently - and that is where it will ultimately fall down. Everyone that goes to games in Scotland knows that a different style of policing/stewarding exists where Rangers and Celtic are involved and no-one would have any confidence that the same wouldn't apply here.

We all know that something that isn't a big deal at an OF match from a policing point of view, would have the police horses and riot shields out at smaller fixtures. If 20 people at a Motherwell vs Killie game stood up and sang a sectarian song, it would be mentioned in the papers, on the BBC, etc, etc and sanctions would follow but if the same happened at the next OF game, it would be called "a largely well behaved crowd" by the police and everyone would move on. 

Without real consistency, this is a non-starter.

[7-2]

The bottom line is Scotland is just too scared of the bigot brothers to do anything about them.

[williemillersmoustache]

The bottom line is Scotland is just too scared of the bigot brothers to do anything about them.

No, Scottish Football is. The Scottish Government is correctly fed up with our countries good name being trashed any time they go abroad or when the one game that gets national attention is on. Hence the OBFA and the push for strict liability.

And quite right too.

[7-2]

24 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

No, Scottish Football is. The Scottish Government is correctly fed up with our countries good name being trashed any time they go abroad or when the one game that gets national attention is on. Hence the OBFA and the push for strict liability.

And quite right too.

 

Of course it's right but why hasn't it been brought in before? The politicians are happy to pretend to do something about it but actually don't. Too many votes to lose. They were bending over backwards to save Rangers when they died. The other clubs ignore it. The legal world helped with the great lie that Rangers are the same club. Police Scotland stand back and do nothing every week. The media ignore sectarianism and help promote it. So called anti-sectarian charities just pay lip service. To me the only group in Scotland who genuinely want to do anything about what's going on are the fans of the diddy clubs. 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, Swello said:

Any sort of strict liability would need to command the confidence of the clubs and (more importantly,) the supporters that it will be applied consistently - and that is where it will ultimately fall down. Everyone that goes to games in Scotland knows that a different style of policing/stewarding exists where Rangers and Celtic are involved and no-one would have any confidence that the same wouldn't apply here.

We all know that something that isn't a big deal at an OF match from a policing point of view, would have the police horses and riot shields out at smaller fixtures. If 20 people at a Motherwell vs Killie game stood up and sang a sectarian song, it would be mentioned in the papers, on the BBC, etc, etc and sanctions would follow but if the same happened at the next OF game, it would be called "a largely well behaved crowd" by the police and everyone would move on. 

Without real consistency, this is a non-starter.

I agree with what you're saying, but it renders this proposal a start, as opposed to a non-starter.

[Swello]

12 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I agree with what you're saying, but it renders this proposal a start, as opposed to a non-starter.

It is a start and I've personally got no problem with the principle behind the proposal - but I genuinely can't see it getting off the ground when it hits the combination of self-interest (asking clubs to back something that will likely cost them more than the current system) and legitimate concerns over how it will be applied. If strict liability is put in place by government imposition, I think that is unhealthy and would be (rightly, IMO) viewed as another example of the "othering" of football supporters.