Resignation is the name of the game - The SFA and the Cup Final Riot

Last updated : 30 September 2016 By Grandmaster Suck

 

I recommend our readers to sit down and have a gander at the Decision of the SFA’s Judicial Panel - you can view it here - http://tinyurl.com/SFApanel

For anyone to dare to put their names to that tripe means they must have been super confident it would be accepted - they have drunk of the culture of the Scottish Football Association and have acted accordingly.

Let’s be honest - if Rangers fans had been responsible for a fraction of the trouble cause by Hibs fans the trophy would have been withheld, we would not have represented the county in European competition, we’d be barred from the current season’s Scottish Cup and I suspect our licence to play football would have been withdrawn.

Let’s recap - Hibs fans invaded the pitch en masse at the final whistle destroying or damaging property, assaulting opposition players and staff, attacking the disabled section and inciting Rangers fans to fight.  We’d have had the book thrown at us.  Instead, Hibs are let off scot-free.

It’s a clear case of institutional bias - had Hibs fans behaved that way against any other set of supporters they would have been crucified.  Instead, before Hampden was cleared that night the usual band of apologists on the BBC and assorted media outlets were actually praising them, playing it down, or claiming they were provoked!  The SFA had a scandal on their hands - their first instinct was to draw Rangers into it and their second was to let Hibs off the hook.

The behaviour of the Hibs fans that day was a disgrace to the country.  Not a few lads letting off steam or singing a naughty song or two - mass civic disorder.  The response of the SFA - their Judicial Panel report said ‘do nothing.’

After what Rangers have been through in recent years I make a point of reading everything I can on a football topic I am looking at - hundred of pages of judicial findings, of administrators reports, etc, etc.  It’s often worth the candle.

The first thing to hit you in the Judicial Panel report is of course - ”The Panel unanimously dismiss the complaint as irrelevant.”  How they arrived at this decision worthy of Ponticus Pilate is tortuously argued over the next eight pages with the signatories to it having their named redacted at the end.  Well, saves them the shame as they pocket their fees for a job well done.

The three gentlemen claim they were guided by various principles - one of which was to make decisions “economically and expeditiously in a fair manner.”  If only the rest of the comedy which follows was that good.  To be fair, they do remind us that “We accept that the approach to this process should be less formal than court proceedings and that the rules should not be given and unduly legalistic interpretation.”  You get the idea where this is going?

It is admitted that they could enforce ‘ejection from the completion and/or any such sanctions’ - but let’s not detain ourselves with such teasing.  The Panel did reject an effort by Hibs’ legal representative Rod McKenzie (who unbelievably doubles as the SPFL legal rep) to argue that the rules did not cover clubs being responsible for the actions of supporters.  Yet, later they would admonish them from such responsibility.

The Panel also bring in the concept of ‘strict liability’ - this means that clubs should be held responsible for every and each action of supporter misbehaviour no matter how much time and effort they have spent on education, publicity and security to improve fan behaviour.  It’s at this point, I would suggest, common sense has left the building.

The panel argues that the application can be seen as “straightforward in relation, for example, a failure to provide a team sheet to the officials” - but it’s obviously less straighfoward, and presumably less serious, to invade, assault and riot.  You couldn’t make this up.

We had an incident at Ibrox a number of years ago where a Celtic fan invaded the pitch and attempted to handcuff himself to the goalposts during a European match (known now as “The Shitey Sean Incident” as the pitch invader had a little accident whilst being nicked) - and Rangers were fined for it.   That’s very obviously ludicrous.  Almost as ludicrous as the suggestion that any game could be stopped because an individual was offended by a song or a banner.  Yet what the SFA are trying to put forward in this instance is that clubs have no responsibility whatsoever for the behaviour of their fans.

I would contend that there is a world of a difference between the usual high jinks of supporters the world over and mass civic disorder and that to allow what happened at Hampden that day to go unpunished is ludicrous.

In their collective charge to get Hibs off the hook the Judicial Panel has set a precedent - reading that judgement it could easily be argued that anything goes.  So why would a club hire security, have support liaison officers or even occasionally ask their fans to be nice?

This is a sham.   Action should have been taken by the 300k a year Chief Executive Stewart Regan - swift and sensible punishment  - it’s what he gets paid for.  The fact that he has presided over this shambles where no action is to be taken against those responsible for turning the nation’s premier sporting showcase into a riot means he should go.