Ref4Me

Bodycams

The Referee Store

ggroves.2

New Member
Level 7 Referee
Will be interested to see the results of trials on abuse. I haven't encountered much of it, but the idea of running with a camera, I don't like it.

However, in terms of proving abuse and on field decisions, it could be useful.
 

Hendo

New Member
Level 7 Referee
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm all for new ideas and anything that reduces abuse/assaults has to be a good thing, BUT people are kidding themselves if they think bodycam's will make anything more than a small drop in the ocean. They don't stop police or NHS from being abused, nor will they stop it happening on a football pitch. As others have previously mentioned, it's a massive minefield in terms of who buys the kit, who stores the footage, potentially filming U18's etc etc

Likewise, I'm sure we're all more than fed up with teams questioning every decision we give, now they'll be demanding to stop the game and review the footage at every potential KMI.
Will those who choose not to wear one now be 'penalised' by CFA's when it comes to disciplinary hearings as they are not providing as good evidence as they could have done.

I could go on but I think you get the idea.
 

Russell Jones

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
I've spent the last few months reffing in New Zealand. The contrast to the UK is marked ... dissent / abuse is much rarer and in no way tolerated by the officials I've worked with. Maybe it's because it's a 'rugby led' culture and therefore the prevailing wisdom is that abuse of officials will be properly dealt with. In my mind, cultural change would be a far better aim than initiatives like body cams ... and based on my overseas experience it's eminently achievable
 

Trip

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
I'm a hard 'no' on bodycams to deter abuse. But if I could wear one without anyone knowing, and if it had good stabilisation (like a gopro) I might wear one to be able to look back on decisions.
 

ggroves.2

New Member
Level 7 Referee
I'm a hard 'no' on bodycams to deter abuse. But if I could wear one without anyone knowing, and if it had good stabilisation (like a gopro) I might wear one to be able to look back on decisions.
I like the idea of it for reviewing games, but I think for abuse, it dehumanises both the referee and the game a little. The referee becomes the figure who players almost become distrustful of, with the idea he can go back and pull you on anything (whilst I get that's the point of them), I think it'll have a negative effect on building a rapport with players.

I think it'll also be clunky, and make buying and carrying kit both uncomfortable and difficult.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
And the obvious problem is who is paying for them. It certainly won't be the FA or CFAs, so will come down to referees having to fund them out of their own pocket. It's a no from me, on the basis that I don't think for a minute they will stop assault, they don't stop assaults on police officers, civil enforcement officers, etc, so why on earth does anyone thing it will stop them on referees? Each to their own though, and I'm certainly supportive of referees being able to wear them should they choose to.

I still think the GDPR element could be problematic though.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
I also genuinely don't understand how you "trial" something like this. What data are you looking at? What's the hypothesis that's being tested? What represents a positive/negative result?

I know that one assault is still one assault too many, but they're still rare enough that any "trial" could quite possibly never get an assault on camera purely by weight of probability. So does that count as a good result or as no data? And if it qualifies as a good result, the trial will be expanded and then you probably will get one on camera. So are you then assessing that as a direct fail of the idea of them as a deterrent, or comparing them against what might have happened without the camera? Which again is nonsense, because "lack of video evidence" isn't ever cited as a reason for a ban failing to be applied, so it's literally impossible for the cameras to actually result in more convictions.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
I also genuinely don't understand how you "trial" something like this. What data are you looking at? What's the hypothesis that's being tested? What represents a positive/negative result?

I know that one assault is still one assault too many, but they're still rare enough that any "trial" could quite possibly never get an assault on camera purely by weight of probability. So does that count as a good result or as no data? And if it qualifies as a good result, the trial will be expanded and then you probably will get one on camera. So are you then assessing that as a direct fail of the idea of them as a deterrent, or comparing them against what might have happened without the camera? Which again is nonsense, because "lack of video evidence" isn't ever cited as a reason for a ban failing to be applied, so it's literally impossible for the cameras to actually result in more convictions.
Cameras aren't a deterrent. Hence why so many assaults are caught on camera!
They do however provide irrefutable evidence. But that keeps us at approximately square one.

Ref support will dine out on this for years if it gets in. Once approved I have no idea what they as an organisation will push for or represent.

Seems odd that leisure leagues refs are not issued with body cams given the exceedingly close relationship between the two organisations.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Cameras aren't a deterrent. Hence why so many assaults are caught on camera!
They do however provide irrefutable evidence. But that keeps us at approximately square one.

Ref support will dine out on this for years if it gets in. Once approved I have no idea what they as an organisation will push for or represent.

Seems odd that leisure leagues refs are not issued with body cams given the exceedingly close relationship between the two organisations.
Exactly. Irrefutable evidence - but who's refuting the evidence at the moment? And why?

Answer those questions and you've fixed the whole issue without needing to buy a single piece of unnecessary tech.
 

Max2

Well-Known Member
Level 3 Referee
Authorities could start by pressing for criminal convictions for physical assault on match officials (or opponents, etc) at grass-roots level rather than a 21-day sitting out.

If I push over a waiter who tells me the Chateaubriand isn't available tonight, I'm never being allowed back on the premises and I'd be expecting a cold night on a hard bed courtesy of Her Maj.
 

Anubis

RefChat Addict
Authorities could start by pressing for criminal convictions for physical assault on match officials (or opponents, etc) at grass-roots level rather than a 21-day sitting out.

If I push over a waiter who tells me the Chateaubriand isn't available tonight, I'm never being allowed back on the premises and I'd be expecting a cold night on a hard bed courtesy of Her Maj.

If you can afford to eat that on your meal out am transferring to your region
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
Cameras aren't a deterrent. Hence why so many assaults are caught on camera!
They do however provide irrefutable evidence. But that keeps us at approximately square one.

Ref support will dine out on this for years if it gets in. Once approved I have no idea what they as an organisation will push for or represent.

Seems odd that leisure leagues refs are not issued with body cams given the exceedingly close relationship between the two organisations.

I would hazard a guess that they have struck a deal to supply body cams to match officials at a discounted rate.

And I do stress, that is just a guess.
 

Brian Hamilton

RefChat Addict
Observer/Tutor
I would hazard a guess that they have struck a deal to supply body cams to match officials at a discounted rate.

And I do stress, that is just a guess.
No doubt branded and offered with a list of upgrades such as storage of footage, data analysis, case support, each one costing just a little bit more than a match fee...
 
Top