A&H

Bodycams Open Age Grassroots Trial 'Early 2023'

I see lots of questions raised about data protection GDPR etc - surely on a grassroots pitch (public space) this isn’t an issue - is it? After all, people all day, everyday take pictures and videos in a public space - or have I misunderstood something?

I for one have no issues with wearing a video recorder … why would I?
 
The Referee Store
lesbobly said:
I see lots of questions raised about data protection GDPR etc - surely on a grassroots pitch (public space) this isn’t an issue - is it? After all, people all day, everyday take pictures and videos in a public space - or have I misunderstood something?

I for one have no issues with wearing a video recorder … why would I?
Click to expand...
People taking photos in a public space aren't usually there in an official capacity and being paid for being there, referees are.

The problem comes more with the processing of the images rather than the taking of them. There's an argument to say that GDPR doesn't apply to individuals, not something I 100% agree with, but if a referee is assaulted or something serious happens they are going to transfer the videos to CFA or FA, and GDPR definitely applies to those organisations.
 
RustyRef said:
People taking photos in a public space aren't usually there in an official capacity and being paid for being there, referees are.

The problem comes more with the processing of the images rather than the taking of them. There's an argument to say that GDPR doesn't apply to individuals, not something I 100% agree with, but if a referee is assaulted or something serious happens they are going to transfer the videos to CFA or FA, and GDPR definitely applies to those organisations.
Click to expand...
Ok - so why does “official capacity” deny right to protect yourself with a camera?

Also any image taken a public place can be simply uploaded to something like twitter or Facebook - I’m not buying the data protection bit - I smell bull …
 
What protection does a camera offer? If someone tries to punch you in the chest, I guess they might hit the camera instead, but that's pretty unlikely....
 
lesbobly said:
Ok - so why does “official capacity” deny right to protect yourself with a camera?

Also any image taken a public place can be simply uploaded to something like twitter or Facebook - I’m not buying the data protection bit - I smell bull …
Click to expand...
When an organisation records your image, for example CCTV. You have a right to that data, as you are the data subject.
As a self employed referee, as the FA and the HMRC see you, you are not just Joe Bloggs in the street taking a picture in the park, and therefore, data capturing whilst in the practise of your work is going to have to comply with GDPR principles.
 
GraemeS said:
What protection does a camera offer? If someone tries to punch you in the chest, I guess they might hit the camera instead, but that's pretty unlikely....
Click to expand...
Well it would be stupid to suggest that it offers ABSOLUTE physical protection … one would assume that’s obvious 😣

But, imho, it can offer protection at two levels - deterring a physical assault (hard evidence) and provides evidence that the assailant cannot claim provocation (eg he called me ….)

So yes it can provide physical protection, but not in your narrow view
 
lesbobly said:
Well it would be stupid to suggest that it offers ABSOLUTE physical protection … one would assume that’s obvious 😣

But, imho, it can offer protection at two levels - deterring a physical assault (hard evidence) and provides evidence that the assailant cannot claim provocation (eg he called me ….)

So yes it can provide physical protection, but not in your narrow view
Click to expand...
Police and security staff wear bodycams, and are also routinely assaulted. The incredible cost of kitting out every referee (either paid by a central body like the FA, or adding another £100+ to the cost of becoming a referee in the first place) offers a minute benefit in comparison.

Some have also argued that cameras can actually incentivise assaults - players who have been caught acting unacceptably and have already been sent off might feel they need to get hold of the camera to destroy the evidence.

And the referee is the neutral arbiter who is sent to these matches. If they're not believed, that's the fault of the commissions and courts. We shouldn't need video evidence if those bodies were simply trained to respect the neutrality of the referee - and training them to do so again represents a much more cost effective option than adding loads of pointless tech.
 
GraemeS said:
Police and security staff wear bodycams, and are also routinely assaulted. The incredible cost of kitting out every referee (either paid by a central body like the FA, or adding another £100+ to the cost of becoming a referee in the first place) offers a minute benefit in comparison.

Some have also argued that cameras can actually incentivise assaults - players who have been caught acting unacceptably and have already been sent off might feel they need to get hold of the camera to destroy the evidence.

And the referee is the neutral arbiter who is sent to these matches. If they're not believed, that's the fault of the commissions and courts. We shouldn't need video evidence if those bodies were simply trained to respect the neutrality of the referee - and training them to do so again represents a much more cost effective option than adding loads of pointless tech.
Click to expand...
I guess not all people believe in referee neutrality. And this is a problem with modern sports, and sports of the past. A body camera, like the police officers, is interesting. I think it should be tried, and then we can draw conclusions.
 
GraemeS said:
Police and security staff wear bodycams, and are also routinely assaulted. The incredible cost of kitting out every referee (either paid by a central body like the FA, or adding another £100+ to the cost of becoming a referee in the first place) offers a minute benefit in comparison.

Some have also argued that cameras can actually incentivise assaults - players who have been caught acting unacceptably and have already been sent off might feel they need to get hold of the camera to destroy the evidence.

And the referee is the neutral arbiter who is sent to these matches. If they're not believed, that's the fault of the commissions and courts. We shouldn't need video evidence if those bodies were simply trained to respect the neutrality of the referee - and training them to do so again represents a much more cost effective option than adding loads of pointless tech.
Click to expand...
“Routinely assaulted” - of course we don’t have any hard evidence to know if that number would go down if the cameras were removed - but my best guess is that cameras would already be removed if police thought they could protect themselves better - so this is a very thin argument to put up against NO CAMERA

Cost? Then you have to look at the money available in football - of course this can. E found - a tiny levy on say International or premier league tickets for a single season would cover the initial costs - the game is awash with dosh - and I for one would be quite happy to for my own £100 for “tech”

I get and understand your neutral arbiter point - and that works where you saying look “here’s the evidence” - my view is that the camera is the deterrent - we are hopefully going to reduce the appearance in front of a panel because the assailant will have “thought twice”

So no, definitely not pointless tech - why not make the same argument about shin pads (if we are playing spurious arguments) “well let’s train players not to kick each others shins😂😂😂😂” think of how much money you could save on shin pads …. Well that would last 10 mins wouldn’t it
 
If someone is going to attack a police officer - typically someone who is physically fit, trained in how to physically subdue someone and wearing all manner of stab vests, handcuffs, pepper spray, nightstick etc, a camera isn't likely to even register to be honest. A camera is a deterrent to someone who is acting rationally - if someone is already in the process of assaulting a referee/police officer, they're past that point.

So no, I don't really believe a camera will deter anyone who wouldn't already be deterred by some combination of the kit, the cards and his teammates. All I think it will do is add a reason for someone who would otherwise be acting rationally to think they need to lay hands on the referee, to get hold of that camera and destroy the evidence of their OFFINABUS etc.

I like your optimism that the money for this will suddenly descend on us from above, but I don't really see that. Grassroots football is already in crisis - clubs are folding all over the place and the PL has yet to choose to voluntarily give it's money away to fix it. Referee retention is also plummeting - the FA have yet to try and incentivise me to keep refereeing by covering the registration fee, or subsidising my kit. In that world, I don't suddenly see £100 per referee in "bodycam grants" appearing out of nowhere.
 
GraemeS said:
If someone is going to attack a police officer - typically someone who is physically fit, trained in how to physically subdue someone and wearing all manner of stab vests, handcuffs, pepper spray, nightstick etc, a camera isn't likely to even register to be honest. A camera is a deterrent to someone who is acting rationally - if someone is already in the process of assaulting a referee/police officer, they're past that point.

So no, I don't really believe a camera will deter anyone who wouldn't already be deterred by some combination of the kit, the cards and his teammates. All I think it will do is add a reason for someone who would otherwise be acting rationally to think they need to lay hands on the referee, to get hold of that camera and destroy the evidence of their OFFINABUS etc.

I like your optimism that the money for this will suddenly descend on us from above, but I don't really see that. Grassroots football is already in crisis - clubs are folding all over the place and the PL has yet to choose to voluntarily give it's money away to fix it. Referee retention is also plummeting - the FA have yet to try and incentivise me to keep refereeing by covering the registration fee, or subsidising my kit. In that world, I don't suddenly see £100 per referee in "bodycam grants" appearing out of nowhere.
Click to expand...
Well we clearly share a different view - your vote is clearly NO, my vote is clearly YES (even if it was a voluntary trial, even buy your own if you want one)

I’m in a fortunate position I can afford a CAM, often don’t take match fee from local youth team(s) - so I would be willing to sponsor a CAM or two for new local refs … it’s just a couple of match fees - for peace of mind that doesn’t sound like a lot of dosh …
 
GraemeS said:
If someone is going to attack a police officer - typically someone who is physically fit, trained in how to physically subdue someone and wearing all manner of stab vests, handcuffs, pepper spray, nightstick etc, a camera isn't likely to even register to be honest. A camera is a deterrent to someone who is acting rationally - if someone is already in the process of assaulting a referee/police officer, they're past that point.

So no, I don't really believe a camera will deter anyone who wouldn't already be deterred by some combination of the kit, the cards and his teammates. All I think it will do is add a reason for someone who would otherwise be acting rationally to think they need to lay hands on the referee, to get hold of that camera and destroy the evidence of their OFFINABUS etc.

I like your optimism that the money for this will suddenly descend on us from above, but I don't really see that. Grassroots football is already in crisis - clubs are folding all over the place and the PL has yet to choose to voluntarily give it's money away to fix it. Referee retention is also plummeting - the FA have yet to try and incentivise me to keep refereeing by covering the registration fee, or subsidising my kit. In that world, I don't suddenly see £100 per referee in "bodycam grants" appearing out of nowhere.
Click to expand...
I fundamentally disagree. Helmet cameras don't stop dodgy driving but it reduces it and GREATLY increases the chance of that action having consequences. How many stories of a referee assault ending in a caution due to lack of evidence do we need?!
 
OnlyUseMeWhistle said:
I fundamentally disagree. Helmet cameras don't stop dodgy driving but it reduces it and GREATLY increases the chance of that action having consequences. How many stories of a referee assault ending in a caution due to lack of evidence do we need?!
Click to expand...
Again I'll ask the same question - the referee is employed as a neutral party. If their statement isn't considered sufficient evidence, one option is to add additional evidence.

Or alternately, simply re-train commissions to fully appreciate the weight of the referees statement. Much simpler, much cheaper, doesn't paint a glowing target on the referees chest.
 
GraemeS said:
Again I'll ask the same question - the referee is employed as a neutral party. If their statement isn't considered sufficient evidence, one option is to add additional evidence.

Or alternately, simply re-train commissions to fully appreciate the weight of the referees statement. Much simpler, much cheaper, doesn't paint a glowing target on the referees chest.
Click to expand...
I don't think we should consider referees as entirely neutral parties. The ref in the game where I faced discriminatory abuse didn't even register that I had raised it with him. They're humans with flaws, cameras leave no doubt.

If you can show me consistent regular targeting of body cams then I might reconsider
 
It's not on me to prove a negative. You're advocating for a huge change in rules and a huge amount of money required to achieve that - I'd argue the onus on you is to find a causal link between bodycams and dropping assault.
 
GraemeS said:
It's not on me to prove a negative. You're advocating for a huge change in rules and a huge amount of money required to achieve that - I'd argue the onus on you is to find a causal link between bodycams and dropping assault.
Click to expand...
This issue here is, of course, that wearing a camera will initially increase assault reports because of confidence in reporting and outcome.
 
lesbobly said:
“Routinely assaulted” - of course we don’t have any hard evidence to know if that number would go down if the cameras were removed - but my best guess is that cameras would already be removed if police thought they could protect themselves better - so this is a very thin argument to put up against NO CAMERA
Click to expand...

We actually do have some evidence on this. A study with a control group of police officers not wearing cameras found a 15% increase in the likelihood of being assaulted among the group that were wearing cameras.
 
Trip said:
We actually do have some evidence on this. A study with a control group of police officers not wearing cameras found a 15% increase in the likelihood of being assaulted among the group that were wearing cameras.
Click to expand...
Except the issue is, as I said above, this could be down to an increase in confidence in reporting incidents. In fact I believe that study says the same thing
 
Could. You're asking for millions of pounds to be spent on the supposition that police were choosing not to report assaults before being given cameras....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top