Safestanding should be introduced at Premier League Grounds

Thank you for posting this debate. I am not sure if you are arguing that the regulation against standing should be gotten rid-of; or that the regulation should be amended to allow safe standing sections where the regulation wouldn’t be enforced. I will argue to both points.From an individual fan's perspective it might not make sense to have an official policy against standing.However, from the perspective of the people responsible for what happens in the stadium it is adventitious to have this as an official policy. This regulation being good for stadiums, is in turn good for the fans.I believe Safe Standing sections should be introduced because quite simply, fans deserve a choice over whether to sit or to stand. Currently some fans who don't want to stand are forced to because the people in front of them are - so the introduction of Safe Standing areas would ensure that those who want to stand can do so without effecting the enjoyment of the game of others.So put simply - regardless of whether it is allowed or not, fans will continue to stand, and this will not changeAs you clearly pointed out, fans will stand regardless of policy. If you changed the regulations to allow safe standing sections, this would not necessarily keep people from standing in the seated areas. If people wanted to stand, but the safe standing areas were full, they would just stand in the seated areas. Also whether a person wants to sit or stand is a fluid decision; which can change based on excitement level, or alcohol level. If people who choose to go to the seated section decide to stand-up, they will stand; thus forcing those sitting behind them to be to stand. So you can see; introducing safe standing sections wouldn’t, in practice, preclude this problem.Standing is not dangerous. Standing did not cause Hillsborough. The Lord Justice Taylor report into the aftermath of Hillsborough found that 'Standing is not inherently dangerous'. I agree that standing didn’t cause Hillsborough. While I can’t say if that terrible situation was caused by the police, poor fan routing, or the gate being opened; it can’t be denied that the fans were at least partly at fault. Please note, I’m not saying that the individual fans were the problem; I am saying that the mob was the problem.When that many people get together there is a new entity formed, a ‘mob’; and a mob ‘thinks’ and acts differently than the individual people in it. Each person could have made a completely rational decision given the information they had, but the crush still occur. Consider the different decisions that people made which led to the problem. Everyone getting to the pen before it reached capacity: No problem yet. Everyone outside trying to get in: Just excited to see the match, when the gate is opened, they try to get in and get as close as they can. The first people from the crowd who got in through the gate to the now over-crowded pen saw it was too full and probably made one of two decisions:‘Eh, I’m one person and one more person couldn’t make that much of a difference’; or ‘That’s too full, I’ll try somewhere else’. But the people behind them don’t yet know the pen is too full; so the people wanting to try somewhere else are pushed in anyway. Repeat until disaster. All that to say; the problem wasn’t standing, it was poor crowd management. Although the stadium had a system in place to control the flow of people, it was poorly implemented. Nobody foresaw the Hillsborough incident happening; so they had physical structures to keep people safe from regular crushes. Putting in rail seats, which is what I understand you to want, would only be installing physical structures for safety. At Hillsborough the physical structures designed for safety, the separate pens, didn’t work because the regulations on how they were to be used, the capacity limits, weren’t enforced.Physical safety structures are only as good as the policy enforcement to use them effectively. Having more regulations allows more control; thus, more safety.Also consider that, in general, having more and more physical structures to keep people safe, might turn out to be counter-productive.If people see people who are acting foolish get hurt, there is the lesson; “Acting foolish is dangerous. I should develop the ability to judge if my actions are foolish; thus dangerous”.If people see people who are acting foolish kept safe through some physical structure, there is the lesson; “There are no consequences to being foolish”. People will continue to act more and more foolishly until they find a way to get hurt in the presence of the same physical structure that kept the original fools safe. Physical structures don’t keep people safe; good judgment keeps people safe. Safe standing areas would prevent fans from being hassled and persecuted for simply choosing to stand up.Having all-seating as an ‘official’ regulation, allows the management of the stadium to ‘persecute’, as you say, people for standing. Notice I didn't’t say, ‘for simply standing’. The reason that this distinction is important is because people can be obnoxious jerks, ruining the match for those around them, without actually breaking any rules. I’m sure you’vie seen people like this at games. Maintaining the regulation against standing allows the management to officially punish a person for standing; while actually punishing them for being a jerk and ruining the enjoyment of everyone around them. I know that when it’s you and your friends being ‘hassled’ it’s for no reason. Consider that when they shut-up that loudmouth you don’t know, they are protecting your ability to enjoy the game. It is a matter of point-of-view. The management’s point-of-view is to try and make the game as enjoyable as possible. If more people have a good time, more people are likely to buy tickets to another game there. The more people who buy tickets, the more money the stadium makes; the more money they can use to make the stadium better for the fans.Having this regulation in place allows, say, Newcastle to selectively enforce it, mostly allowing the fans to stand, but also being able to remove, or ban, an abusive fan. Of course I’m not talking about Newcastle fans they’re great; I’m referring to Spur supporters. Those are my thoughts on your points; here are my reasons to not introduce safe standing sections.If you are advocating removing the regulation forbidding standing:The management of the stadium does’t want this because it allows them to punish jerks, which are not technically breaking any other rules, but are ruining other fans enjoyment; which is good for most fans.If you are simply advocating stadiums put in safe standing sections while leaving the regulation against standing in place:This will not preclude people from standing in the seating section any more than it does with the unofficial standing sections you mentioned; making it unnecessary. This will not necessarily make things safer. Physical structures don’t make people safe, good judgment makes people safe. People doing foolish things will find a way to be unsafe no matter how many rails are around. The more safety structures you put in place, the less people use good judgment. Since putting safe standing sections won't significantly change anything: The question of whether or not to put in safe standing sections comes to; should clubs spend the time and money to remodel the stadiums? No. The construction would affect the fans by being a hassle. The construction cost money, money that could be spent by the stadium for other things to better the experience of the spectator watching the match.Thank you for considering this question from a different perspective. I look forward to your response in the next round.