by There are certain topics that are shrouded in mystery in Scottish football. Summer football, for example. Plastic parks. And this week, we have to land on strict liability. Unfortunately, you don’t have Nicky Campbell’s wisecracks or Jenny Powell’s sweet smile to soften the blow, just me, going over old ground.
Doing a quick Google search as part of my research for this column, I found that there was extensive discussion of strict liability in these pages back in 2016. And then again, the following year. And again, well, you get the picture.
And just as the debate inevitably ended in all those cases with the concession that there was simply no way strict liability would ever be accepted in Scottish football, so too, alas, will it end this time too.
As Hibs’ resolve to raise the issue again is commendable, with the club trying to find solutions to the problem of fan misbehavior following their Scottish Cup win against Rangers at Easter Road on Sunday, the desire is not all from. enough of the other clubs to vote to accept it. Or even a mild hunger pang.
READ MORE: Hibs confirm fan allocations have been reduced following Rangers clash
Hibs deserve praise for at least tackling what is currently in Scotland, as it has been for many years, a problem with the behavior of some of the support base who attend matches.
Hibs have responded strongly to the sentiments made clear by their fans at their recent AGM, that they are stuck with the sectarian songbook every time Rangers come to town, and have decided tickets will be limited in the future.
This being Scotland, yes, we also have to admit that this sort of stuff isn’t just the preserve of Rangers supporters. I have long been a subscriber to the theory that most clubs – if not all – have a percentage of idiots whose behavior goes far beyond the limits of acceptability and tarnishes the names of their respective clubs.
When Rangers fans saw the news that their tickets were being cut I’m sure there were quite a few, given the recent behavior of some Hibs supporters, who felt that people in greenhouses shouldn’t be wearing corkscrews.
In fairness to Hibs, however, they have admitted that general misbehavior from home fans is a problem, and that they are doing what they can to stop those throwing missiles at opposition players identify, root out and ban, for example. .
But this is where I start to have problems with his punitive measures of away fans. Why isn’t what’s good for the goose, good for the goose?
They have the right to limit tickets in their own stadium. Definitely. But just as I have long argued that such a policy at Old Firm games is ultimately self-defeating and devalues the Scottish football scene, so it will prove here too. On top of that, Hibs will also take a financial hit, and those empty seats are unlikely to be sold.
By limiting the tickets available to away fans you end up punishing innocent supporters. People do not even fly with the crows squawking out their bile, simply sitting next to them.
Well now, die-hard supporters might say, why then are those who would accept such fans allowed to hang over the reputation of Scottish football – ie. the majority of our clubs – continue unscathed in their blissful ignorance? Sure, something must be done.
I’m not saying that there isn’t more that clubs could do. And while there is not much I agree with SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster about, this is where our views align.
“Strict liability does not work, as the repeated fines for individual clubs in UEFA competitions season after season clearly show,” Doncaster said in the 2022 annual debate.
“Clubs’ significant investment in CCTV technology means that incidents caused by the small minority of misbehaving fans are much easier to identify and act on. Clubs, football authorities and the vast majority of reasonable fans abhor the actions of those who engage in criminal acts at matches.
“It is by targeting these individuals directly and punishing them to the full extent of the law that we will provide meaningful and effective deterrence.”
In addition to real liability, its adoption elsewhere has not led to any Utopian platforms, where racism and doomsday chants have been replaced by a luscious chorus of Kum-Ba-Yah. The evidence that strict liability will end football’s societal issues is not only mirrors, but acts as a megaphone. Or even move the needle.
I can say with certainty, however, that the change of opinion required within the Scottish game to take it hasn’t happened.
READ MORE: Hibs 0 Rangers 2: Clement’s men enter the semi-finals
In 2019, a survey showed that only three of the 42 senior clubs in Scotland were in favor of introducing strict liability. You might be able to add Hibs to that list, but Jenny Powell is more likely to answer that fan letter I wrote to her as a teenager in 1996 asking for a date than clubs ultimately voted it down.
And so, Hibs representatives will go to the Rules Review Group at the invitation of the SFA in a few weeks, where they will meet with Celtic, Aberdeen and representatives from the SPFL, SWPL and SFA who currently sit on it, to discuss liability take strict. And then, they will meet that reality.
That might sound like jaded, browbeaten defeatism. That’s because, when it comes to this question, that’s exactly what it is.
The government will not enforce it. The clubs will not vote for him. So, we can continue to debate the merits of strict liability and whether it could be a potential panacea for ills like sectarianism and hooliganism year after year ad infinitum.
The truth is, it won’t.
