The Ref Stop

Bodycams Open Age Grassroots Trial 'Early 2023'

C

CaptainsPlease

Level 5 and
Level 3W Referee
Hopefully they make this open to any grassroots ref to apply for the trial.

BBC Article

"The aim of the trial, the first globally of this nature, would be to explore whether the use of bodycams improves participant behaviour, while providing additional safety for match officials in the adult grassroots game," said an FA spokesperson.

"We will be tracking the impact of the trial on behaviour and, if it's successful, will look to roll it out nationally and internationally.

"We are finalising the details of the trial with Ifab and further information will be communicated in due course."
 
The Ref Stop
There are still loads more questions than answers. I'm for anything that protects the safety of referees, but ...

  • Who pays for it? It won't be the FA, certainly not for every referee in England.
  • What standard of camera is needed? Just as a home camera with SD storage is of minimum use as the burglars could take it with them, a body cam with local storage is useless if the offender snatches it off you (as has happened in multiple cases of assaults on police officers, security staff, etc)? Cameras that record direct to cloud are expensive.
  • How admissible will the evidence from it be, both from a legal and FA discipline perspective?
  • Could referees have bodycam evidence used against them if they make a mistake, or are accused of misconduct?
  • How does the GDPR requirement work? If you are filming anything with potential PII you are legally responsible for the storage and destruction of that. Shirt numbers, if they can be matched to online team sheets, are classed as a source of PII (and I asked a UK leading GDPR expert to clarify this), so how does that work?
I'm not anti-bodycam, but it isn't as straight forward as is being made out.
 
I listened to TalkS*** on this and there was a lady talking. Some additional info:

The UK bodycam system: the video is encrypted and sent to a central server, then the referee can request a time on the video to receive the footage. Oh and there is currently no plan on how to make the video evidence admissable In disciplinary hearings.

I’m also not anti bodycam - but I don’t think this will fly and I think it means IFAB and PGMOL are avoiding the actual issue - which is discipline in the professional game - and the lack of respect on TV mimicked at grassroots.

On the cams, the price, how will the ref know what’s shown, will the cam actually capture important footage (if the ref turns his head to receive a punch, does the cam?), if there is no process is this a lame duck?

For me all this does is further obscure the increasing lenience (no cards!) in the pro game and takes us further away from addressing player/coach/fan behaviour at the top level globally. IMHO the game just needs much harsher punishments for non football offences.

(But the people who run the game globally are bent crooks as been repeatedly proven… so… oh well…)
 
santa sangria said:
I’m also not anti bodycam - but I don’t think this will fly and I think it means IFAB and PGMOL are avoiding the actual issue - which is discipline in the professional game - and the lack of respect on TV mimicked at grassroots.
Click to expand...
Err, just a quick one. Nothing to do with PGMOL as it doesn’t involve the professional game at all.

Think you mean the FA
 
Yeah, I've got no interest in this.

Aside from all the perfectly valid concerns Rusty raises, we all know police etc are still routinely assaulted with body cams, so it's not going to actually stop the assaults.

And if you then say "but the evidence means they can be convicted" - well, why is the referee's testimony not sufficient already? The referee is a neutral arbitrator, sent to a match to act impartially. As far as the FA tribunals are concerned, their word should be taken as fact.

So either that is the case, which means the bodycams are obsolete. Or it isn't the case, in which case re-training tribunals to correctly appreciate the weight of a referee's word represents a significantly cheaper and simpler option than someone (and indeed, who?) spending millions on bodycams.
 
I'd happily wear one for the benefit of watching back to improve my positioning etc.

But the points above on abuse are spot on, it maybe stops managers or players telling porkies in tribunals etc but that's barely worth the cost
 
No

That said, knowing the cyclist who is annoying you has a cam recording, or, learner driver, does it reduce chance of us beeping horn or raging out window?


maybe
 
Anubis said:
No

That said, knowing the cyclist who is annoying you has a cam recording, or, learner driver, does it reduce chance of us beeping horn or raging out window?


maybe
Click to expand...
Wearing my helmet cam has reduced how much I am knocked off my bike 100% but has not noticeably reduced how often I am close passed etc. So maybe it stops the worst offences but not the more common stuff
 
Actually, for me, just like VAR, the biggest whinge I have is the waste of resources.

We don’t have enough referees
We don’t get enough training
There are not enough assessors/assessments
Pay and conditions are awful

The VAR cash and the cash from this should be going to the fundamentals of grassroots refereeing, not these vanity projects that mask the moral turpitude of the pro game.
 
OnlyUseMeWhistle said:
To be fair, several major FIFA officials
Click to expand...
To be fair, if you're referring to the 2015 corruption case, only two FIFA officials have been convicted on those indictments. 14 of those indicted made guilty plea bargains.

The remainder have even been acquitted, remain under arrest or on bail.
 
Yampy said:
To be fair, if you're referring to the 2015 corruption case, only two FIFA officials have been convicted on those indictments. 14 of those indicted made guilty plea bargains.

The remainder have even been acquitted, remain under arrest or on bail.
Click to expand...
If you're including former it's more and a guilty plea bargain is an admission of guilt
 
Yampy said:
To be fair, if you're referring to the 2015 corruption case, only two FIFA officials have been convicted on those indictments. 14 of those indicted made guilty plea bargains.

The remainder have even been acquitted, remain under arrest or on bail.
Click to expand...
I’m quite happy with the term “bent”, “crook” or “bent crook” for many involved in running football’s international and national associations in living memory. Actually claiming anything else on a general level would be nuts.

This would be funny if it didn’t ram home just how disgustingly bent football governance is.., https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-was-in-the-room-when-qatar-got-the-world-cup
 
Re-reading the BBC articles again:
www.bbc.com

The grassroots referees refusing to let abuse win

After a week dominated by stories about the abuse of referees in grassroots football, BBC Sport speaks to officials determined to carry on doing what they love.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
I just want to highlight again, for me, the key point: “everyone relates to what they see on TV.”

The way Premier League football is officiated contributes to abusive behaviour, cheating and violence at grassroots.

The changes in Premier League refereeing over the last year - avoiding cards, keep 11 on the field - contribute to this.

The Premier League is heading towards the Hunger Games. Every step in that direction sends ripples of abuse, cheating and violence to lower leagues.

VAR is not being used to clean up the game. Body cams are smoke and mirrors.

The media is guilty here and the focus should be on the disgusting behaviour on TV. But it’s bread and circuses. And the money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top