A petition for improving grassroots football official's safety

[Drfctilidie]

Hi I know that I am new on here but I am trying to petition IFAB to remove the section of law 5 that say referees a prohibited from wearing a camera as I believe if the referee has the choice to wear one it will help to reduce aggressive and abusive behaviour towards officials along with providing evidence to allow for stronger punishment of those who behave in this manner. Thanks

Can you spare a minute to help Neil Roberts?

Change law 5 to allow Football Referees to wear a body cam and microphone if they wish.

chng.it

 

[JamesL]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but, will the choice of a referee not to wear a Cam increase the chances that they are a) more likely to suffer assault and B) less likely to get justice as no video evidence and c) if a referee is attacked from behind this won't be on the cam.

There are lots of issues body worn cams ranging from gdpr and video footage of minors under the age of 18. I agree they may serve as a deterrent (doesn't stop police assaults though) but its not as straightforward as petitioning ifab because after that there are a whole raft of issues which might or might not be able to be solved.

 

[Big Cat]

I'd much rather sign a petition for FIFA referees to set an example by dealing with player behaviour appropriately, instead of acting on instructions born out of financial motivation

 

[RustyRef]

I remain to be convinced that body cams will necessarily help. We already have cases of police officers wearing cams getting attached and then the offender trying to remove it (futile as I would guess it is cloud connected but stupid is as stupid does), and they could actually put referees at greater harm.

 

[Mintyref]

I remain to be convinced that body cams will necessarily help. We already have cases of police officers wearing cams getting attached and then the offender trying to remove it (futile as I would guess it is cloud connected but stupid is as stupid does), and they could actually put referees at greater harm.

How do you make out that referees may be at greater harm?
Yes there will always be the knob that continues with an assault on camera, but mostly they do act as a deterrent..........certainly does for our civil enforcement officers.....

 

[Justylove]

How do you make out that referees may be at greater harm?
Yes there will always be the knob that continues with an assault on camera, but mostly they do act as a deterrent..........certainly does for our civil enforcement officers.....

Reality is that I don't think it will make a difference either way.

Typically assaults on referees are done in public circumstances with 21 other witnesses at least. It's the players red mist that comes down and whether they are on camera or not is a moot point. Offending players may actually try to use it as a mitigation factor based on what had gone on previously.

 

[deusex]

Reality is that I don't think it will make a difference either way.

Typically assaults on referees are done in public circumstances with 21 other witnesses at least. It's the players red mist that comes down and whether they are on camera or not is a moot point. Offending players may actually try to use it as a mitigation factor based on what had gone on previously.

21 other witnesses, 10 of whom are the idiots teammates and the other 11 aren't going to bother writing a statement or attend a hearing so 0 witnesses.
Add in a county FA that cares more about player retention than ref welfare....

 

[one]

I have a question for OP. If referees are allowed to wear a cam and have done so in a game, can the league 'force' the referee to handover the footage because a player is claiming he/she was abused by the referee? How about if a team is claiming the referee made an error in law which changed the outcome of the match?

I'm with @JamesL . In theory it sounds good but there are too many other issues with it. For now anyway.

 

[Justylove]

21 other witnesses, 10 of whom are the idiots teammates and the other 11 aren't going to bother writing a statement or attend a hearing so 0 witnesses.
Add in a county FA that cares more about player retention than ref welfare....

Disagree with this statement. My experience is that 99% of people involved in football are horrified at an assault on the referee. Where they've been reported the player in question has be thrown out of the club they are playing for. To say that any of their 10 team mates would not be interested or the opposing 11 (plus managers and spectators) would not make a statement is a bit far fetched.

 

[RustyRef]

How do you make out that referees may be at greater harm?
Yes there will always be the knob that continues with an assault on camera, but mostly they do act as a deterrent..........certainly does for our civil enforcement officers.....

Because as I said police officers have faced issues with the offender trying to remove the camera after assault to get rid of any evidence, almost a kind of second attack. If morons are willing to go to that length with police officers you can bet your life they will with a referee.

Whilst I agree that cameras might help with prosecutions, I don't buy the argument that they are deterrent for referees. When someone assaults a referee it is always a case of the red mist taking over, and I genuinely don't believe that the presence of a camera will register in their tiny little minds.

 

[Big Cat]

Simple fact is that there are as many potential downsides as there are benefits to the idea of body-cams. More importantly, they (like FIFA) do nothing whatsoever to address the behavioural root-causes and dreadful culture in the game. Professional footballers set an appalling role-model to our children (who are the next generation of moronic footballers). The culture of football can only be fixed by a top-down approach. It wouldn't be at all difficult, but there's no money in doing so because we might lose some of the endless hype in the game and media

 

[Ben448844]

Cameras do not address the root cause. The whole issue is a bit of a red herring imo.

The wider issue is the acceptance of poor behaviour towards referees from everyone in the game. Whilst you have a culture of acceptance of verbal abuse and constant criticism/moaning etc towards refs, you cant expect to make large inroads into the issue of abuse.

Its too engrained to change it short term, but if we could at least develop a culture of respect towards referees at junior level, there is long term hope of a better environment for officials. That would require an almost zero tolerance attitude to negativity towards referres at junior level (like rugby), but I don't think football is mature enough for such a culture to envelop.

 

[zarathustra]

I don't see an issue with referees wearing body cameras, though I understand where rusty is coming from. If a player has already assaulted a referee then it's likely he'd happily keep going in order to get the camera.

However, this is simply treating the symptom not the disease. If you want to stop, or at least massively reduce, abuse towards referees then this needs to come from the FA in terms of much harsher punishments for players and clubs.

There is also the "last week's ref" element. There are referees who intentionally ignore certain laws, either because they don't like them or for an easy life. This can then cause problems for referees who follow behind them.

 

[RefJef]

When I first started refereeing I was interested in wearing a body cam, not for my own protection, but as a means to help my development.

I’m not sure how good these cameras are, but I did think it would be an easy and useful way for me to look back at my game and use the footage the analyse and improve my performance.

Obviously I have never done so, but was surprised when I discovered I was not allowed to. Whilst they may not help (in either ref development or ref protection) I struggle to see the negatives of using them and I have no idea why they are banned.

 

[zarathustra]

There are probably privacy issues depending on the country etc. While it is entirely legal to take photographs and videos of whatever you want on public land, i.e. the local park, I imagine many parents would take a dim view of a referee running around videoing their kids.

You also have the possibility that some players just don't want to be filmed and they could get aggressive, especially if they have something to hide.

 

[Ben448844]

Could the video evidence also be used against the referee in the appeals process? IE, red cards? It just all seems a bit messy considering physical assaults are so rare. At the rosk of repetition, cameras do not solve the root cause

 

[Kes]

There are probably privacy issues depending on the country etc. While it is entirely legal to take photographs and videos of whatever you want on public land, i.e. the local park, I imagine many parents would take a dim view of a referee running around videoing their kids.

You also have the possibility that some players just don't want to be filmed and they could get aggressive, especially if they have something to hide.

There's no privacy issues in the UK unless of course you're filming somebody in their house/garden without first gaining their permission.

Parents who may be offended (normally only simply for the reason that they choose to be ) have no legal or moral cause to. The only time this issue generally raises it's head is if the film is then shared publicly, such as on a club website or You Tube for example.

Were ref cams permitted, and were I ever to choose to wear one, any parent objecting would of course, be welcome to forbid their little Johnny from taking part in the match.

As for player aggression, my own view on it is that a camera should act as a deterrent for all but the most stupid of individuals for obvious reasons.

Personally, I'm not an advocate of ref cams. If they were to become a normal part of the game, even at grass roots, then the logical assumption is that sooner or later, all players would have permission to wear them as well? (Just throwing it out there ).

 

[JamesL]

There's no privacy issues in the UK unless of course you're filming somebody in their house/garden without first gaining their permission.

Parents who may be offended (normally only simply for the reason that they choose to be ) have no legal or moral cause to. The only time this issue generally raises it's head is if the film is then shared publicly, such as on a club website or You Tube for example.

Were ref cams permitted, and were I ever to choose to wear one, any parent objecting would of course, be welcome to forbid their little Johnny from taking part in the match.

As for player aggression, my own view on it is that a camera should act as a deterrent for all but the most stupid of individuals for obvious reasons.

Personally, I'm not an advocate of ref cams. If they were to become a normal part of the game, even at grass roots, then the logical assumption is that sooner or later, all players would have permission to wear them as well? (Just throwing it out there ).

Not sure that is exactly right.
You can submit a DSAR for CCTV footage that you are in, therefore there must be GDPR rules around, how the data ie video is stored and or processed.

A quick Google search of filing in public gdpr returned this:

Staying above the law: A professional guide to filming in public spaces
Want to add something extra to your corporate video? Perhaps you're filming an advert or even a film. Failure to follow the rules could get you arrested

BY MICHAEL GARWOOD
PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2018

Filming in public spaces can add a lease of life and authenticity to your videos, that just can’t be imitated in a studio, whether you’re making a short film or a TV advertisement. It also gives you the chance to film B-rolls that you can reuse across other channels in conjunction with your main production.

Of course, public places do not afford you the kind of control that you may be used to in a studio. Do it wrong and you might earn the ire of passers-by. In worst case scenarios though, you can end up with a hefty fine or even get arrested.

To save you from these mishaps when taking to the streets, here’s a handy guide from Bristol and London based Aspect Film & Video’s Evelyn Timson.

1. Stay GDPR Compliant
Since it took effect in May 25, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) gave EU residents more control over their personal data. This includes being in part of someone else’s film, whether to their knowledge or not.

Just so you won’t hit any legal snags, here are some things to make sure you stay GDPR compliant:

• Come up with a clearly-worded contract or release form for all staff members, interviewees, actors and extras, saying that they agree to being filmed and for what purpose.
• Get written permission from any member of the general public that will be identifiable in your videos.
• Ask for a written permission from parents if you need to film a child/children.
• Put up unavoidable and clear signage around the location before you start filming. This way, people will be aware and choose to not walk near you. This also act as a handy workaround, as getting consent forms from every person that walks past the camera is nigh on impossible.
• Where possible, make it a close-up shot so you won’t film anyone in the background.
• Blur individuals’ faces during editing.
• Remove or de-identify anyone who requests to do so

Staying above the law: A professional guide to filming in public spaces

Want to add something extra to your corporate video? Perhaps you're filming an advert or even a film. Failure to follow the rules could get you arrested

www.installation-international.com

.

So it really isn't as straight forward as strap a cam on tomorrow and away you go...
I get alot of the rules are about publishing the content which we would be unlikely to do, but, there are still rules and regs that have to be adhered to and someone could easily fall foul if they weren't aware go them

 

[Kes]

Not sure that is exactly right.
You can submit a DSAR for CCTV footage that you are in, therefore there must be GDPR rules around, how the data ie video is stored and or processed.

A quick Google search of filing in public gdpr returned this:

Staying above the law: A professional guide to filming in public spaces
Want to add something extra to your corporate video? Perhaps you're filming an advert or even a film. Failure to follow the rules could get you arrested

BY MICHAEL GARWOOD
PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2018

Filming in public spaces can add a lease of life and authenticity to your videos, that just can’t be imitated in a studio, whether you’re making a short film or a TV advertisement. It also gives you the chance to film B-rolls that you can reuse across other channels in conjunction with your main production.

Of course, public places do not afford you the kind of control that you may be used to in a studio. Do it wrong and you might earn the ire of passers-by. In worst case scenarios though, you can end up with a hefty fine or even get arrested.

To save you from these mishaps when taking to the streets, here’s a handy guide from Bristol and London based Aspect Film & Video’s Evelyn Timson.

1. Stay GDPR Compliant
Since it took effect in May 25, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) gave EU residents more control over their personal data. This includes being in part of someone else’s film, whether to their knowledge or not.

Just so you won’t hit any legal snags, here are some things to make sure you stay GDPR compliant:

• Come up with a clearly-worded contract or release form for all staff members, interviewees, actors and extras, saying that they agree to being filmed and for what purpose.
• Get written permission from any member of the general public that will be identifiable in your videos.
• Ask for a written permission from parents if you need to film a child/children.
• Put up unavoidable and clear signage around the location before you start filming. This way, people will be aware and choose to not walk near you. This also act as a handy workaround, as getting consent forms from every person that walks past the camera is nigh on impossible.
• Where possible, make it a close-up shot so you won’t film anyone in the background.
• Blur individuals’ faces during editing.
• Remove or de-identify anyone who requests to do so

Staying above the law: A professional guide to filming in public spaces

Want to add something extra to your corporate video? Perhaps you're filming an advert or even a film. Failure to follow the rules could get you arrested

www.installation-international.com

.

So it really isn't as straight forward as strap a cam on tomorrow and away you go...

I disagree.

Your link refers to professional photographers operating under the mantle of a business/corporation.

It's not in reference to somebody with a home cam, ref cam, CCTV on private property or as is often the case these days, some mug running around filming police/soldiers/anybody with their mobile phone.
Try this instead ... https://www.theiac.org.uk/resources...What can I do? :–,you may have already shot.;)

 

[JamesL]

I disagree.

Your link refers to professional photographers operating under the mantle of a business/corporation.

It's not in reference to somebody with a home cam, ref cam, CCTV on private property or as is often the case these days, some mug running around filming police/soldiers/anybody with their mobile phone.
Try this instead ... https://www.theiac.org.uk/resources...What can I do? :–,you may have already shot.;)

But if you are storing my personal image, you are storing my personal info, as my image is classed as personal data which under gdpr principles means I have a right of access to that data. It's not as straightforward as whack a cam on and off you fly.
I work for a local authority. Anyone, whose image we capture on cctv has a right to access those images, this is images captured in a public place.
Whilst a civil matter, if a player wanted access to the images of them you had captured and stored, they would have a right of access under gdpr legislation.