IFAB have approved grassroots ref trials apparently.
I'd rather be allowed to carry pepper spray. That'd be a proper deterrent. could disguise it as vanishing spray.Not convinced. I certainly won’t be using one.
That could replace dissent cards, too . . . .I'd rather be allowed to carry pepper spray. That'd be a proper deterrent. could disguise it as vanishing spray.
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'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.
Could it be yellow?That could replace dissent cards, too . . . .
Cameras aren't a deterrent. Hence why so many assaults are caught on camera!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.
Exactly. Irrefutable evidence - but who's refuting the evidence at the moment? And why?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.
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
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.
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.
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...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.