Cup final disciplinary outcome

[mghibs]

Looks like the sfa have scrapped complaints against us and Rangers http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...1&newsID=16527


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northernhibee]

Dancer!

[Since90+2]

Surely this cant be true!? Absolutely delighted if so.

[Moulin Yarns]

So, looks like Hibs fought the complaint and won, and as a result the complaint against The Rangers was dropped.

Wednesday, 28 September 2016

A Judicial Panel convened for the purposes of a preliminary hearing on the following Notices of Complaint:

Alleged party in breach: Hibernian FC
Match:Hibernian FC v Rangers FC (Scottish Cup Final - Saturday 21st May 2016)

Disciplinary rule allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 311

In that at the above match you failed to adhere to the Cup Competition Rules, specifically Rule 28 of the Rules of The Scottish Cup. That at the above match damage was sustained to Hampden Stadium, being the stadium where the Scottish Cup Final was played, as a consequence of misbehaviour by supporters of your Club. That the misbehaviour by your supporters occurred at the conclusion of the above match, whereby a number of your supporters carried out an incursion onto the pitch, and thereafter remained upon the pitch until cleared by Police Scotland and Stewards. That in the course of this misbehaviour by your supporters damage was sustained to the stadium, as follows:

(i) To the surface of the pitch, portions of which were removed; and/or
(ii) To a set of goal posts which were broken and had netting removed; and/or
(iii) To parts of the LED advertising system situated at the perimeter of the pitch, in the vicinity of both the East Stand, and/or the North Stand; and/or
(iv) To advertising hoardings situated at the perimeter of the pitch, in the vicinity of the East Stand.

Outcome: The panel dismissed the complaint.

The Panel Chair's Notes of Reasons can be found here

Case Two

Alleged party in breach: Rangers FC
Match: Hibernian FC v Rangers FC (Scottish Cup Final - Saturday 21st May 2016)

Disciplinary rule allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 311

In that at the above match you failed to adhere to the Cup Competition Rules, specifically Rule 28 of the Rules of The Scottish Cup. That at the above match damage was sustained to Hampden Stadium, being the stadium where the Scottish Cup Final was played, as a consequence of misbehaviour by supporters of your Club. That the misbehaviour by your supporters occurred at the conclusion of the above match whereby, following on from a pitch incursion by supporters of Hibernian FC, a number of your supporters also carried out an incursion onto the pitch. That thereafter supporters of your Club who had engaged in the pitch incursion remained upon the pitch until cleared by Police Scotland and Stewards. That in the course of this misbehaviour by your supporters damage was sustained to the stadium, as follows:

(i) To parts of the LED advertising system situated at the perimeter of the pitch, in the vicinity of the North Stand, and /or the West Stand; and/or
(ii) To advertising hoardings situated at the perimeter of the pitch, in the vicinity of the West Stand.

Outcome: In light of the Hibernian FC determination, the Complaint against Rangers FC is withdrawn.

[mghibs]

Having skimmed through the notes it looks like it was argued that the club could not have done anything to prevent the invasion, only a brief skim over mind


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[660]

Looks like the lack of strict liability was the key. The clubs can't be held accountable for not controlling their supporters.

[GreenOnions]

Seems pretty logical and probably as predicted by most at the outset. The police are dealing directly with individuals re allegations of assault etc and the SFA have charged the clubs for damage to stadium property caused by fans of both teams.

Action taken against clubs for actual pitch invasions is generally explained in terms of inadequate stewarding etc as arranged by the "home" club. Clearly - neither Hibs nor Rangers were responsible for these arrangements at Hampden so no action to be taken.

[Mr White]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Looks like the lack of strict liability was the key. The clubs can't be held accountable for not controlling their supporters.

That was actually the reason we were charged as strict liability does apply to the scottish cup.

[Brightside]

This doesnt mean that we still can't get find though does it??

[Bostonhibby]

Just had a quick read of the attachment, so long as the SFA don't want to pursue individual damage costs that might be the end of it, so we will never know what the the rangers fans were really doing on the pitch and what sort of fine all that violence might have attracted

Trying to impose a strict liability here when the SFA doesn't seem to favour one generally, and hasn't imposed one in its own rules seems to be their undoing(?)

[le bill]

Reading between the lines here looks to me the SFA are not willing to use the "club liability" card as this would simply stir up a hornets nest for past/future Misdemeanours
- in particular sectarian singing from the ugly sisters.

Extract from Decision of the Judicial Panel...................................


[22] It may be thought odd that there is no apparent disciplinary sanction for thisevent. But that is a matter for the members to deal with, in clear terms, rather thanfor the Judicial Panel to innovate by a purposive interpretation of the rules. From theinformation which we have, there is a limited appetite for strict liability withinScottish football.

[TrinityHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Seems pretty logical and probably as predicted by most at the outset. The police are dealing directly with individuals re allegations of assault etc and the SFA have imposed fines on the clubs for damage to stadium property caused by fans of both teams.

Action taken against clubs for actual pitch invasions is generally explained in terms of inadequate stewarding etc as arranged by the "home" club. Clearly - neither Hibs nor Rangers were responsible for these arrangements at Hampden so no action to be taken.

Have we been fined?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Forgive my ignorance, so does this mean we are not being fined?

[Andy74]

Just waiting for the Rangers statement...

[Kojock]

Is there still a possibility for a claim for damaged advertising boards.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Have we been fined?

Nope - case dismissed.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Do Gordon Smith and Alex McDonald need to be asked for their opinions on this decision.

[BroxburnHibee]

Can't wait to see Traynors face - most likely beetroot right now.

[JeMeSouviens]

This bit is brilliant:

For similar reasons, we do not accept that the designation of the subject of the
complaint as Hibernian FC is fatal to the complaint. We recognise that the member
of the SFA is The Hibernian Football Club limited; we further recognise that in the
context of the commission of Lord Nimmo Smith the precise identification of the
member responsible for the club was a material concern. But we are not persuaded
that there is either ambiguity or confusion in the name in which this complaint runs.

Hibs' lawyer pulls out his ethereal entity card.

[GreenOnions]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just waiting for the Rangers statement...

Let's hope it's another one of those bitter diatribes penned by some inarticulate drunk they've pulled out of a pub.

[BroxburnHibee]

I'm no expert but reading the reasons for the dismissal it seems as if the SFA is blaming the member clubs for their refusal to implement the 'strict liability'.

[mghibs]

Says somewhere in the notes that they are surprised there has been no demand for compensation by the sfa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just waiting for the Rangers statement...

"see them kafliks, if it wasn't for them we'd have got our day in court and been able to show how we were only on the pitch defending our club when we were hitting people with corner flags, kicking and punching them and abducting that kid.

We have a legal defence fund and we are going to appeal this, no one is going to dismiss a case against us, we are the people, no surrender, we don't do walking away, well except when we let our previous club liquidate...........

it's a conspiracy"

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm no expert but reading the reasons for the dismissal it seems as if the SFA is blaming the member clubs for their refusal to implement the 'strict liability'.

Im no expert either, but i read it as the judiciary panel blaming the sfa and its member clubs for no strict liability and poorly written procedures in this event

[Pretty Boy]

This statement is going to be gold.

[Pete]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm no expert but reading the reasons for the dismissal it seems as if the SFA is blaming the member clubs for their refusal to implement the 'strict liability'.

If this is the case then it should completely neuter Rangers as far as statements are concerned.

p.s. Please make a statement Rangers!

[Jim44]

We mght get a knuckle-rap from the SFA for the incident and a suspended sentence of dismissal from future competition if the fans' behaviour is repeated.

[JeMeSouviens]

In analysing the provisions relied upon by the compliance officer we take
account of the information provided to us, that at the Scottish FA Board meeting in
June 2013 the clubs emphatically rejected an amendment of Article 28 which would
have given rise to strict liability by providing that clubs “ensured” the “good
conduct” of their supporters “in any ground”. That rejection is part of the football
context. Mr McGlennan accepted that he is relying on Rule 28 to import strict
liability to the club for the actions of the supporters. The panel has to be satisfied that
the provisions are clear and unambiguous and do not conflict with requirements of
procedural fairness and natural justice before taking that step.

We posed the question – what should the club have done or not done to avoid
an infringement of Rule 28? We found ourselves unable to answer that question. The
club cannot take advantage of the “reasonably practicable” defence, a defence which
in terms of the Bowen report appears well founded

In a nutshell - no strict liability, no offence.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We mght get a knuckle-rap from the SFA for the incident and a suspended sentence of dismissal from future competition if the fans' behaviour is repeated.

Doubt it. It's dismissed so there can't be any findings.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We mght get a knuckle-rap from the SFA for the incident and a suspended sentence of dismissal from future competition if the fans' behaviour is repeated.

Nope, the case against us has been dismissed by the judicial panel, ie. the club is not guilty.