I think you are misunderstanding what I mean. I'm not exonerating anyone or saying the clubs have no responsibility in these matters.
Of course clubs can take proactive action such as warning people what will happen if they do chant offensive stuff, as I said on page 1 of this thread, but they simply can not physically prevent someone from doing so beforehand. Clubs must do all they can to stop it happening, but they can only do so much and ultimately the only people who can stop it are the fans themselves. Clubs can remind fans every 30 seconds about it but if one idiot decides to shout something offensive then I really don't see what any club could do to prevent the actions of an individual(s) who decides to ignore all of the requests and warnings not to do so. The only really tangible thing that clubs can do is identify the culprits and make sure they are banned for life, and they must be obligated to do so, but again that is different to prevention.
So doesn't this go back to the point about whether you have read the reason why they have been done?
They haven't been done because the fans shouted something vile, they have been done because of their shoddy response to it.The tribunal was chaired by his Honour Judge Rodney Grant, who criticised the club for failing to take steps to stop the homophobic chanting, for failing to identify the perpetrators, for failing to challenge the chanting and for their failure to undertake a meaningful inquiry afterwards
So they were criticised for failing to take steps to stop it (did they make an announcement there and then? did the stewards act on this?).
They have been criticised for failing to identify the perpetrators (it is very common for fans to be highlighted now by either CCTV, public appeals, strong stewarding etc.)/
They have been criticised for failing to challenge the chanting (linked to point 1)
They have been criticised for not undertaking a meaningful inquiry.
They haven't simply been done because their fans chanted some stuff, it was their inadequacy to deal with the issue. Had they proven they had dealt with this strongly, I suspect no more than a suspended sentence, although that is only my opinion.
You are focusing on the fact that they couldn't prevent this happening, yet most of the criticism from the Judge is aimed at Cas' responseonce it did happen.
Edited by Dave T, 29 June 2010 - 06:51 PM.