A&H

Appealing a S6

Phonesurgeon said:
@Brian Hamilton never mind the photography guidelines. I knew that you can't appeal an S6, and a more senior referee, confirmed it. Only you seemed unaware of the fact.
Oh and on a more personal level, could you post stuff without belittling other fellow referee?
We get enough of that week in and week out, certainly there is no need from other in this forum.
Click to expand...
Ah ok, so you've lost a point and now you're diverting the discussion.

As for appealing the S6, why would I be interested? Once I had sent a player off, why would I be bothered? I had done my job. You'll also see that I have acknowledged that I wasn't aware. But everyone was aware but me? Really, everyone, really?

I held my hands up. I admitted my error. Perhaps you could try the same over the photography matter and the legal matter, rather than diverting the topic again?

You took the matter away from refereeing, so you're fair game, You did it in a way that used passive-aggressive language, personally I don't like that. I took umbrage and you wouldn't like me when I take umbrage... in fact you've already proven it.
 
The Referee Store
Ross said:
Ok children, play time is over now. Might I suggest chilling out a bit or am I going to have to put you all on the naughty step?
Click to expand...
If it's warm, I'll sit there. Frozen to the marrow after 3 hours outside this afternoon tutoring 23 new referees in sub-zero temperatures. Yes measures were in place to minimise the time of exposure to the elements and the candidates, with one exception, were suitably dressed.
 
oh so now we are going on points? cool. ok then i lost both point.
if you re-read my original post, my comments were on the joke side, as blue player informed me he is a ref
(at the end of the match every player is a ref) and he was going to appeal it!
Thats why i said i had to keep a straight face, while informing him he earned a misconduct report.
I haven't PM'ed you his name because i did already checked with both North and West Riding lists!
My thread was more on the irony side than the actual fact of the matter, but its been blown out of every proportion.
I'll be careful next time on what i post!
Good Night and God bless, Alpha out!
 
Would i be bothered if someone took a photo of me in a game ? .....NO!
Have i got something to hide ?.... NO!
Am i bothered ?.... NO!
Is my kit clean? do i look the dogs b******* ?.....YES

No qualms about my photo being taken, bet you wouldn't complain if the local paper was there and took some actions shots for the sports pages.... come on guys man up...
 
@Brian Hamilton @Phonesurgeon - you are both kind of right regarding pictures/filming ...

you can take a picture of who/whatever you like - but if the person in question, or owner of the object asks you to delete the picture/video then you have to, if not the police can be called where they will make the original photographer to delete such material

so 1/2 a mark for you both - now, lets all be friends :p
 
@Brian Hamilton, I agree with your points...@Phonesurgeon you say that it was ground which is open to the public therefore a public place?

What is your argument with Brian, he is correct...you can walk into a police station and film or a court they are public places so why wouldn't you be allowed to film something on a football pitch? Are you going to go round and confiscate any of the members of the pubic in a ground and say you ain't allowed to do that? Unless the club has privacy notices stationed around the ground saying you aren't allowed to use cameras or video equipment then you haven't a leg to stand on. Even then think how many players have their image rights protected yet watch any TV match and see how many people are taking pictures of the players on the pitch, do they put them up on social media absolutely...even in nightclubs how many have been caught doing something they haven't! Stop worrying about something so insignificant...did you get the decision right 100%, let him appeal (if he can I lost the will reading the discussion, nor do I care) you got the decision right end off, the video evidence if there is any will back you up so smile sweetly and I could near guarantee you won't hear anything!

I actually welcome people videoing it and have on occasion when someone says to me that I was wrong I ask to see the video and show I was actually right.....best example a cup final being played filmed for TV....didn't give a penalty...highlights showed I was 100% right...thanks for the apologies from the team who screamed and yelled at me for not giving it....not! However, I always have a rye smile when I do them now!
 
Charlie Jones said:
@Brian Hamilton @Phonesurgeon - you are both kind of right regarding pictures/filming ...

you can take a picture of who/whatever you like - but if the person in question, or owner of the object asks you to delete the picture/video then you have to, if not the police can be called where they will make the original photographer to delete such material

so 1/2 a mark for you both - now, lets all be friends :p
Click to expand...
@Charlie Jones - I'm not sure the above is correct... if you took the photo whilst you yourself are in a public place, there is no third-party right over those images. It is best practice to get consent of individuals if the images are to be used for commercial purposes, particularly if the images are of children (and remember under child protection those individuals should not be named within any image), but no-one can require that you delete the images (other than with a court order).
 
it is correct, as I have done it a fair few times ... (doing my job, you seem to annoy some people when you aren't actually doing anything wrong - they take pictures, call the police etc. when the police turn up I explain what's happened, that pictures have been taking of myself and my guys working and our vehicles without our consent - they then have to be deleted)

possibly the only difference is the pictures are purposely of myself/collegues and our vehicles

whereas, in the situation that @Phonesurgeon describes, you'd have to prove that purposely filmed the referee, and not the game in general (which they are entitled to do) - so yes, @Brian Hamilton would be correct
 
Charlie Jones said:
it is correct, as I have done it a fair few times ... (doing my job, you seem to annoy some people when you aren't actually doing anything wrong - they take pictures, call the police etc. when the police turn up I explain what's happened, that pictures have been taking of myself and my guys working and our vehicles without our consent - they then have to be deleted)

possibly the only difference is the pictures are purposely of myself/collegues and our vehicles

whereas, in the situation that @Phonesurgeon describes, you'd have to prove that purposely filmed the referee, and not the game in general (which they are entitled to do) - so yes, @Brian Hamilton would be correct
Click to expand...
Not knowing what your job is, but there are some exceptions - typically related to the official secrets act, both in terms of location and people. The police are fairly good at getting this wrong though, and members of the public that aren't aware of the law here will normally go along and just delete photos on the request of a police officer. Come up against someone who are aware of their rights in taking photos, and it might not be such a happy path. But as I said, your job might fall under one of the exceptions...
 
Police can…

  • Stop and search you if they reasonably suspect you to be a terrorist under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
  • View images on the camera you're carrying if you're being searched under Section 43.
  • Seize and retain your camera if the police officer reasonably suspects that it may contain evidence that you are a terrorist.
  • Question you if you appear to be taking photos of a member of the police force, armed forces or intelligence services.
  • Arrest you for taking pictures of the police, armed forces or intelligence services under Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000, if they have a reasonable suspicion that the 'information' is designed to provide assistance to a person committing or planning an act of terrorism.
Police can't…

  • Stop and search you under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (which doesn't require any suspicion of an offence having been committed).
  • Prevent you taking pictures on the public highway (although you could be charged with obstruction or a public order offence - breach of the peace, for example).
  • Delete or ask you to delete digital images at any point during a search under Section 43 (although they can do this following seizure if there is a court order or similar that permits it).
  • Arrest you for photographing police officers involved in the course of normal police duties and incidents (unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the pictures will be used for assisting terrorist activities).
 
Oh, and remember, just because somebody might look like they are a police officer, doesn't necessarily mean these days that they are a police officer (e.g. civil enforcement officer, high court enforcement officer etc). IIRC, even a PCSO doesn't have the stop and search rights (unless they are a BTP PCSO).
 
Trip said:
It's a criminal offence to take photographs in a court.
Click to expand...
@Trip Courtroom illegal......outside in waiting area etc legal hence I said court not courtroom! Consent is provided by default unless told otherwise. If no express comments, posters, or communication is provided, then any images taken before being told to stop are valid and permitted, but any images taken after being told to cease taking images are no longer permitted. Many court rooms prohibit images, and similarly many courthouses do the same as a means of protecting witnesses or victims, but if nothing is stated and no notice is provided, the right to take images exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top