Billy Sharp attacked by a fan (violence in football)

[up the line]

Of course, I know the rules. But I still don't understand why anyone should be responsible for the actions of others, unless it's their children. Punish those who run onto the field - I think so.

Same as the owners of any business that doesn't take appropriate steps to prevent law breaking on their premises eg.
Nightclubs who dont do enough to prevent the selling and taking of illegal drugs.
Running any commercial operation comes with responsibilities defined in law. If I open a pub and let people fight in it, keep the music on past the alloted time, leave broken glasses in the street, fornicate in the car park and inject in the loo without taking adequate steps to prevent it...I'm getting closed, simple as.
Or don't you think that the owners of businesses owe a duty of care to the wider public for the actions of people using their premises?!
When is it you will say it's the responsibility of a club to ensure player safety? When a player gets knifed?
Yes punish those who run on the field...but also punish the club that fails to prevent injury to playing staff.

 

[Pokitren]

Same as the owners of any business that doesn't take appropriate steps to prevent law breaking on their premises eg.
Nightclubs who dont do enough to prevent the selling and taking of illegal drugs.
Running any commercial operation comes with responsibilities defined in law. If I open a pub and let people fight in it, keep the music on past the alloted time, leave broken glasses in the street, fornicate in the car park and inject in the loo without taking adequate steps to prevent it...I'm getting closed, simple as.
Or don't you think that the owners of businesses owe a duty of care to the wider public for the actions of people using their premises?!
When is it you will say it's the responsibility of a club to ensure player safety? When a player gets knifed?
Yes punish those who run on the field...but also punish the club that fails to prevent injury to playing staff.

You misunderstand me. I have no objection to all kinds of preventive measures on the part of the club - this is very right. However, the person who committed the action should be responsible for the action. And why should it be otherwise?

 

[up the line]

You misunderstand me. I have no objection to all kinds of preventive measures on the part of the club - this is very right. However, the person who committed the action should be responsible for the action. And why should it be otherwise?

And when a club doesn't prevent violence against opposition players?
You seem to think that the club should not bear any punishment though if they fail to prevent violence in their stadium?

As I said, do you think a pub that allows it's punters to behave outside the law should get away with no punishment?

You are aware that both the individual committing an offence, and the premises that failed to prevent it may both be found liable to varying extents? You are aware that just because the individual committing the offence has been punished it doesn't mean that that's the end of it and that the club (or pub, or nightclub if you like) that failed to take reasonable measures to prevent it happening get off scot free?

 

[Joe Totale]

Harsh penalties such as points deductions and ground closures are the only way forward. Netting and fences are not a viable option given what has happened in the past and could happen again.

The hope is that harsh penalties would lead to a degree of self policing by the crowd as a club cannot hire enough stewards to stop 20,000 fans going onto the pitch. If a pitch invasion is the difference between relegation and survival then hopefully that will make the fans think twice.

 

[Balham Green]

Same as the owners of any business that doesn't take appropriate steps to prevent law breaking on their premises eg.
Nightclubs who dont do enough to prevent the selling and taking of illegal drugs.
Running any commercial operation comes with responsibilities defined in law. If I open a pub and let people fight in it, keep the music on past the alloted time, leave broken glasses in the street, fornicate in the car park and inject in the loo without taking adequate steps to prevent it...I'm getting closed, simple as.
Or don't you think that the owners of businesses owe a duty of care to the wider public for the actions of people using their premises?!
When is it you will say it's the responsibility of a club to ensure player safety? When a player gets knifed?
Yes punish those who run on the field...but also punish the club that fails to prevent injury to playing staff.

Exactly. Clubs will have to spend extra money before something even more serious happens. Extra stewarding maybe dogs. Far from convinced the threat of punishment will deter.

 

[Balham Green]

Harsh penalties such as points deductions and ground closures are the only way forward. Netting and fences are not a viable option given what has happened in the past and could happen again.

The hope is that harsh penalties would lead to a degree of self policing by the crowd as a club cannot hire enough stewards to stop 20,000 fans going onto the pitch. If a pitch invasion is the difference between relegation and survival then hopefully that will make the fans think twice.

It's not 20000 fans though is it? It's a minority. There were no fans on the pitch for the Rangers Frankfurt final. It can be prevented but costs money.

 

[Pokitren]

And when a club doesn't prevent violence against opposition players?
You seem to think that the club should not bear any punishment though if they fail to prevent violence in their stadium?

As I said, do you think a pub that allows it's punters to behave outside the law should get away with no punishment?

You are aware that both the individual committing an offence, and the premises that failed to prevent it may both be found liable to varying extents? You are aware that just because the individual committing the offence has been punished it doesn't mean that that's the end of it and that the club (or pub, or nightclub if you like) that failed to take reasonable measures to prevent it happening get off scot free?

Yes, I understand your point of view. You are right in your own way.
I believe that laws should be passed that require clubs to create preventative measures for such events. However, the individuals who commit such events should be held responsible.

For example, if there is an utterly atrocious murder on UK soil, should the killer or the government that allowed it to happen be held responsible? It is clear that there is the responsibility of society as a whole for such events, but all of society cannot be responsible for the actions of some insane person, can it? Shouldn't we then fine society as a whole for such events? Why only the club? Let's fine everyone at once!

 

[up the line]

Yes, I understand your point of view. You are right in your own way.
I believe that laws should be passed that require clubs to create preventative measures for such events. However, the individuals who commit such events should be held responsible.

For example, if there is an utterly atrocious murder on UK soil, should the killer or the government that allowed it to happen be held responsible? It is clear that there is the responsibility of society as a whole for such events, but all of society cannot be responsible for the actions of some insane person, can it? Shouldn't we then fine society as a whole for such events? Why only the club? Let's fine everyone at once!

When there are murders there are investigations and yes, where it is found that preventative measures should have been put in place by a third party they do, where appropriate, face consequences.
I'm not really sure where you're going with your logic.

Again you paint a simplistic picture where ONLY the murderer can face any recriminations...this is patently not the case..as I have already said (but you seem to be ignoring) certain situations mean that the perpetrator of a crime is punished but also that some responsibility for it happening falls on others for not adequately preventing it happening.

To use your own scenario...if there is a murder committed and the law enforcement agencies had multiple indications that the perpetrator was going to commit the offence yet failed to take reasonable measures to stop them doing so, are you seriously saying that the law enforcement agency should face no consequence in addition to the punishment given to the individual for committing the crime?!
It's a different but relatable scenario at Everton. They must have suspected that there would be a pitch invasion and recent weeks show us these can turn ugly.
They failed to prevent it happening. But you think they shouldn't face any consequence whatsoever? 🤷

A club charges people to enter and in doing so commit to upholding certain rules relating to the safety of everyone inside the stadium.
I cannot for the life of me work out how, if a club fail in this duty (as various clubs have over the past week or two), you think they shouldn't face punishment in addition to the individuals responsible?!
There have been numerous examples of clubs being ordered to play behind closed doors, away from their home stadium, fined etc for supporter behaviour...do you think it was wrong that those clubs were punished? After all it's the actions of individuals not the club....as you would say.

 

[Argylegames]

Still no defence of the passionate fans from Nikkkkkkkk?

 

[Pokitren]

When there are murders there are investigations and yes, where it is found that preventative measures should have been put in place by a third party they do, where appropriate, face consequences.
I'm not really sure where you're going with your logic.

Again you paint a simplistic picture where ONLY the murderer can face any recriminations...this is patently not the case..as I have already said (but you seem to be ignoring) certain situations mean that the perpetrator of a crime is punished but also that some responsibility for it happening falls on others for not adequately preventing it happening.

A club charges people to enter and in doing so commit to upholding certain rules relating to the safety of everyone inside the stadium.
I cannot for the life of me work out how, if a club fail in this duty (as various clubs have over the past week or two), you think they shouldn't face punishment in addition to the individuals responsible?!
There have been numerous examples of clubs being ordered to play behind closed doors, away from their home stadium, fined etc for supporter behaviour...do you think it was wrong that those clubs were punished? After all it's the actions of individuals not the club....as you would say

I believe that the club should be held responsible for the lack of preventive measures, not for the actions of others. And the list of these measures should be drawn up by a third party before any offenses are committed. This would be fair to everyone.

If a third party (maybe the soccer association?) gave a list of their safety laws and the club ignored them - then yes, the club is guilty and should be held responsible.

Otherwise it turns out by your logic that the club broke a law that doesn't exist.

 

[up the line]

I believe that the club should be held responsible for the lack of preventive measures, not for the actions of others. And the list of these measures should be drawn up by a third party before any offenses are committed. This would be fair to everyone.

If a third party (maybe the soccer association?) gave a list of their safety laws and the club ignored them - then yes, the club is guilty and should be held responsible.

Otherwise it turns out by your logic that the club broke a law that doesn't exist.

You've quite literally already been shown the regulations, drawn up by a 3rd party (the EFL) earlier in the thread by bigalf so what you are asking for already exists.

It exists. It's been broken. So (without being rude) I'm wondering what your next excuse is going to be for not penalising the club for breaking regulations you yourself said they should be punished for breaking.

 

[Balham Green]

I believe that the club should be held responsible for the lack of preventive measures, not for the actions of others. And the list of these measures should be drawn up by a third party before any offenses are committed. This would be fair to everyone.

If a third party (maybe the soccer association?) gave a list of their safety laws and the club ignored them - then yes, the club is guilty and should be held responsible.

Otherwise it turns out by your logic that the club broke a law that doesn't exist.

Pretty sure an employer has a legal duty to protect its employees does it not?

 

[Pokitren]

You've quite literally already been shown the regulations, drawn up by a 3rd party (the EFL) earlier in the thread by bigalf so what you are asking for already exists.

Yes, I've seen, there are general statements in there about the club having to provide security.
What I'm saying is that there should be specific statements about exactly how that security should be provided. And it's the violation of specific rules that should be fined, not vague statements.
We're not going to fine the entire community because one person is unhappy, are we? Although, under the law, he has the right to be free, including to be happy. These are vague statements, do you understand me?

 

[Balham Green]

Yes, I've seen, there are general statements in there about the club having to provide security.
What I'm saying is that there should be specific statements about exactly how that security should be provided. And it's the violation of specific rules that should be fined, not vague statements.
We're not going to fine the entire community because one person is unhappy, are we? Although, under the law, he has the right to be free, including to be happy. These are vague statements, do you understand me?

'No persons are permitted to encroach on playing area'. Is that too vague for you?!

 

[up the line]

Yes, I've seen, there are general statements in there about the club having to provide security.
What I'm saying is that there should be specific statements about exactly how that security should be provided. And it's the violation of specific rules that should be fined, not vague statements.
We're not going to fine the entire community because one person is unhappy, are we? Although, under the law, he has the right to be free, including to be happy. These are vague statements, do you understand me?

At this point I'm out.
It's not up to the law to define exactly what a business or operation (such as a football club) does to protect its staff, customers and the public, because the law does not know the ins and outs of every business, let alone the layout of every commercial premises and football stadium in the land so what you are asking for is ludicrous...a football club should be it's own expert on how it protects its staff, same as a factory should consult the right people and be it's own expert in protecting its staff.
The legislation is abundantly clear. No supporter enters the field of play.
In some fantasy land the law might have the time to analyse the security and health and safety arrangements of every premises and piece of commercial property in the land providing bespoke guidance in every case.
Here in reality there is a catch all, very clear instruction that it is the duty of the occupier of a business to take reasonable steps (the word reasonable used because the law cannot know everything about every business) to protect staff/customers/the public.
If anything the injured players in pitch invasions have every right to pursue a case in tort law against the club for negligence.