THE Scottish Premiership was back in action last night and we saw both the best and the worst that our national game has to offer. There were dramatic winners at Tynecastle and McDiarmid Park, a shock result in Aberdeen and, sadly, another off-field incident that has once again brought the game into disrepute.

I am referring, of course, to the news coming from Tynecastle last night that Hearts goalkeeper Bobby Zlamal was allegedly the target of a coin thrown from the away support. The incident passed largely unnoticed during the game itself, but footage has since emerged showing a coin-like object landing near the goalkeeper. After the game, Celtic captain Scott Brown was also pictured picking up an object off the pitch before handing it to referee Steven McLean.

It goes without saying that the vast majority of us are sick and tired of these frankly stupid incidents. Every week that passes seems to bring an incident like this, and every week the overwhelming majority of fans and pundits denounce the culprits and little or no further action is taken.

READ MORE: 'Coin thrown' at Hearts keeper Bobby Zlamal during Celtic match

It is becoming apparent that fining or banning the spectators involved simply isn’t enough of a deterrent. Too often, it seems, these ‘fans’ are getting away with their idiocy and escaping punishment. Measures like these are supposed to act as a deterrent, but it’s difficult to argue that this is an effective one, given the sheer number of incidents like these we have witnessed so far this season.

Something has to change. There’s been a fair bit of discussion over the last few weeks about the possibility of bringing in strict liability to Scottish football. In a nutshell, this would mean that clubs are responsible for the behaviour of their fans, regardless of the venue of a fixture. As it stands, Scottish clubs are currently only liable for incidents that take place within their own stadium.

These current rules have led to coin-throwing, sectarian chanting and other forms of abuse, particularly from away supports as the individuals involved know there is no risk of their club being penalised for it. Strict liability would change this; whether it be through fines, partial stand closures or even docked points at the far end of the disciplinary spectrum, clubs would be forced to take responsibility for their supporters’ behaviour or face the consequences themselves.

If supporters knew that their own fans could be banned from an away day, or that their club could be fined a significant amount of money, then it stands to reason that the crowds would almost police themselves. If one supporter was behaving in a manner that could directly hurt his team or his fellow fans, then the behaviour would be quickly condemned and brought to an abrupt end.

READ MORE: Neil Lennon: Hearts win was “psychologically huge” for Celtic after Brendan Rodgers' shock exit
 

The problem with strict liability, though, is that it cannot be imposed upon Scottish football. A vote would have to take place between all 42 SPFL clubs, and would require a majority to become enshrined in Scottish football law. But the last time clubs voted on the implementation of strict liability, the result was a landslide 41 to one against.

So why are clubs in Scotland so vehemently opposed to taking responsibility of the issue? The answer, as is so often the case, is with the financial implications strict liability would impose on clubs.

In the first instance, teams who are the worst offenders when it comes to this type of offence will obviously be reluctant to back such a proposal. Partial stand closures, financial penalties and away support bans will directly damage these clubs, and as a result they are unlikely to back strict liability’s widespread implementation.

But even smaller clubs, who are rarely involved in such incidents, would be required to vote against their own financial interests if they backed strict liability. Teams like Kilmarnock, Hamilton and St Mirren rely heavily on gate receipts from fixtures against the Old Firm and are hesitant to back any proposal that could result in this revenue stream being cut off, even if only for one or two games each season.

READ MORE: Rangers 4-0 Dundee: Five things we learned as Steven Gerrard's side win well at Ibrox

The lack of financial security in Scottish football means that teams depend on receiving their share of gate receipts when either of the Old Firm come to town, and if strict liability was brought in then there is a chance clubs could potentially miss out on this windfall. Abusive behaviour from a previous game could result in a ban on away supporters for a following match, and the club hosting the second fixture would ultimately feel the pinch. Why should the likes of Livingston back a change in the laws of the game that would punish them for discretions on behalf of the Celtic support against Hearts, for example?

This is the fundamental problem with getting strict liability in place in Scotland. Most clubs feel more has to be done to tackle the abuse that is sadly all too commonplace in Scottish football, but are unwilling to bear the financial burden that this would bring. Teams across the country will consistently talk a good game about tackling unruly fan behaviour head-on, but will not put their money where there mouth is. Until they do - and accept full responsibility for their fans’ actions and bear the financial cost - nothing will change.