Bodycams Open Age Grassroots Trial 'Early 2023'

[santa sangria]

I think it was discussed before that a lot of people don't think bodycams can't prevent assault and may have limited use due to legal complications at grassroots.
But yes, here, it's a great illustration of how to clean up pro player communication with officials. I think it could even be silent unless needed in disciplinary hearings and it would have the desired effect. Any televised player watching this will temper their attitude and language.

I am not wild about this particular performance. He's really indulging the players in a lot of unnecessary detail - at least I recommend making conversations much shorter and factual at grassroots. And the goals are going in with the ref behind the ball rather than with an angle.And that poor advantage leading to goal at the wrong end. Maybe Roonaldo has a point

 

[SammyT5]

Again I'll ask the same question - the referee is employed as a neutral party. If their statement isn't considered sufficient evidence, one option is to add additional evidence.

Or alternately, simply re-train commissions to fully appreciate the weight of the referees statement. Much simpler, much cheaper, doesn't paint a glowing target on the referees chest.

The reality is that they aren’t going to change the way commissions work any time soon, so this is the next best thing.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

The reality is that they aren’t going to change the way commissions work any time soon, so this is the next best thing.

Dropping by to say the best thing the FA could do is to overhaul this process. They’re absolutely not fit for purpose

 

[DJIC]

Interesting comment from Dan Meeson, FA's head of refereeing that the body cam trial will be extended over another 2 or 3 seasons! If you need more data surely extend the number of referees trialling it. Surprises me that VEO is used at very low level grass roots including kids football, with no supposed GDPR issues, storage issues, compliance, permission, cost issues etc. Footage is frequently posted on social media when a referee is considered to have made an error.

IMHO, allow referees to use a bodycam if they want to, at their expense (cost of c£15-£30).

"We are still in the infancy of the trial. We really need to run this out for two to three seasons to build a sufficient amount of data and insight that we can use to say whether it is successful or not," Meeson said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67634598

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

Interesting comment from Dan Meeson, FA's head of refereeing that the body cam trial will be extended over another 2 or 3 seasons! If you need more data surely extend the number of referees trialling it. Surprises me that VEO is used at very low level grass roots including kids football, with no supposed GDPR issues, storage issues, compliance, permission, cost issues etc. Footage is frequently posted on social media when a referee is considered to have made an error.

IMHO, allow referees to use a bodycam if they want to, at their expense (cost of c£15-£30).

"We are still in the infancy of the trial. We really need to run this out for two to three seasons to build a sufficient amount of data and insight that we can use to say whether it is successful or not," Meeson said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67634598

Cams are fine to use at lower levels, issue comes when games move from public spaces like parks and onto private land where people might not consent to filming from an individual not associated with the club/land owners. Obvious the club has a right to film on their own land and you imply consent when entering a ground as a spectator or player.

I agree with you 100% though that refs should be allowed to wear body cams to film in public spaces like they would if they were stood at the side of the pitch.

 

[RustyRef]

Cams are fine to use at lower levels, issue comes when games move from public spaces like parks and onto private land where people might not consent to filming from an individual not associated with the club/land owners. Obvious the club has a right to film on their own land and you imply consent when entering a ground as a spectator or player.

I agree with you 100% though that refs should be allowed to wear body cams to film in public spaces like they would if they were stood at the side of the pitch.

Well that would be very easy to fix, they just update SCoR to say that all venues must allow referees to wear bodycams and if they refuse that venue cannot be used. Private grounds aren't going to take that approach if it means they lose all of their football bookings overnight. There are bigger issues to tackle, like that of GDPR and what is to prevent a player or coach from wrenching the camera off the referee and walking off with it (don't know if they upload to cloud but if they do they will be very expensive and certainly way more than £30).

There have only been 500 games with bodycams, that is no way near enough to say that it has been a success. It is promising, but it is a tiny fraction of the number of games players in the country every week and it may just be that the idiots who abuse and assault referees haven't played in any of those games. The article says that none of the 100 referees involved have had cause to activate their cameras, I accept that means they haven't been assaulted but it doesn't necessarily means they haven't been abused. It could be that they didn't deem it serious enough to activate it, and having to activate it at all strikes me as strange. We've seen some assaults where they have come out of nowhere, and even one where the referee was attacked from behind, they would have had zero chance of pressing the button to activate.

 

[Runner-Ref]

Well that would be very easy to fix, they just update SCoR to say that all venues must allow referees to wear bodycams and if they refuse that venue cannot be used. Private grounds aren't going to take that approach if it means they lose all of their football bookings overnight. There are bigger issues to tackle, like that of GDPR and what is to prevent a player or coach from wrenching the camera off the referee and walking off with it (don't know if they upload to cloud but if they do they will be very expensive and certainly way more than £30).

There have only been 500 games with bodycams, that is no way near enough to say that it has been a success. It is promising, but it is a tiny fraction of the number of games players in the country every week and it may just be that the idiots who abuse and assault referees haven't played in any of those games. The article says that none of the 100 referees involved have had cause to activate their cameras, I accept that means they haven't been assaulted but it doesn't necessarily means they haven't been abused. It could be that they didn't deem it serious enough to activate it, and having to activate it at all strikes me as strange. We've seen some assaults where they have come out of nowhere, and even one where the referee was attacked from behind, they would have had zero chance of pressing the button to activate.

Yup, they automatically upload to cloud. Referee does not have access to the footage at any point.

 

[Runner-Ref]

Interesting comment from Dan Meeson, FA's head of refereeing that the body cam trial will be extended over another 2 or 3 seasons! If you need more data surely extend the number of referees trialling it. Surprises me that VEO is used at very low level grass roots including kids football, with no supposed GDPR issues, storage issues, compliance, permission, cost issues etc. Footage is frequently posted on social media when a referee is considered to have made an error.

IMHO, allow referees to use a bodycam if they want to, at their expense (cost of c£15-£30).

"We are still in the infancy of the trial. We really need to run this out for two to three seasons to build a sufficient amount of data and insight that we can use to say whether it is successful or not," Meeson said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67634598

I'm happy to be proven wrong on this, but as far as I know, the trial is only in adult football. My county has one of the leagues involved in the trial and when I attended a league meeting where they went through the bodycam stuff, they stated its currently only adult football

But that has potentially changed as I am not actively involved in the league on a weekly basis

 

[bester]

Well that would be very easy to fix, they just update SCoR to say that all venues must allow referees to wear bodycams and if they refuse that venue cannot be used. Private grounds aren't going to take that approach if it means they lose all of their football bookings overnight. There are bigger issues to tackle, like that of GDPR and what is to prevent a player or coach from wrenching the camera off the referee and walking off with it (don't know if they upload to cloud but if they do they will be very expensive and certainly way more than £30).

There have only been 500 games with bodycams, that is no way near enough to say that it has been a success. It is promising, but it is a tiny fraction of the number of games players in the country every week and it may just be that the idiots who abuse and assault referees haven't played in any of those games. The article says that none of the 100 referees involved have had cause to activate their cameras, I accept that means they haven't been assaulted but it doesn't necessarily means they haven't been abused. It could be that they didn't deem it serious enough to activate it, and having to activate it at all strikes me as strange. We've seen some assaults where they have come out of nowhere, and even one where the referee was attacked from behind, they would have had zero chance of pressing the button to activate.

It's alway recording but only retains the last 30 seconds until the button is pressed. If you're assaulted then it may be impossible to press it.

Seem to recall sin-bins only being trialled in a few leagues, before being brought in for all grassroots games.

 

[RustyRef]

It's alway recording but only retains the last 30 seconds until the button is pressed. If you're assaulted then it may be impossible to press it.

Seem to recall sin-bins only being trialled in a few leagues, before being brought in for all grassroots games.

That makes sense. So if they press the button it switches from keeping the last 30 seconds to keeping it indefinitely. Still a big risk though as if the assault is unexpected you aren't going to be able to press it.

 

[santa sangria]

If there hasn’t been an incident yet then it’s not really been tested yet!

The whole process of pressing the button, going through whatever disciplinary procedure, not seeing the footage, and the footage getting used in a disciplinary procedure… this hasn’t happened yet…?

500 matches is a very very small sample.

 

[DJIC]

Do you think it will ever be ‘tested’? The players & benches know it is there during the trial so modify their behaviour. In a way the 500 matches shows it has worked If it has not been needed.

In any 500 matches what is the usual number of coach yellow/red cards, OFFINABUS, violent conduct, abuse to a referee, misconduct reports etc & how does this compare to this 500 match sample?

 

[RustyRef]

Do you think it will ever be ‘tested’? The players & benches know it is there during the trial so modify their behaviour. In a way the 500 matches shows it has worked If it has not been needed.

In any 500 matches what is the usual number of coach yellow/red cards, OFFINABUS, violent conduct, abuse to a referee, misconduct reports etc & how does this compare to this 500 match sample?

Which is why they need much a bigger trial. According to Sport England there are 1,100 leagues and 18,000 clubs at grass roots in England. Assuming 50% are open age that means around 2,000 games per week or around 50,000 games a season. So 500 games with bodycams is 0.01% of all games, that is nowhere near a big enough sample to make a decision.

 

[santa sangria]

This was on TalkVAR this morning. Positive sentiment but of course they glossed over the minimal sample size, totally avoided mentioning that using the footage hasn’t been tested… and of course no mention of the effect of the TV and media treatment of officials and the effect on grassroots.

I had to switch off

 

[Trip]

That makes sense. So if they press the button it switches from keeping the last 30 seconds to keeping it indefinitely. Still a big risk though as if the assault is unexpected you aren't going to be able to press it.

When you press the button it retains the last 30 seconds plus whatever happens next. So you don't need to know you're going to be assaulted but you do have to press the button fairly promptly.

I don't think GDPR is a problem at all. What is a problem is the cost.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

I don't think GDPR is a problem at all. What is a problem is the cost.

Agreed.

Given the crap I have dealt with when reporting incidents of discrimination against myself, I am all for cameras. If I'd been allowed one this season I wouldn't have to waste my time reporting things with no hope of consequences

 

[RustyRef]

When you press the button it retains the last 30 seconds plus whatever happens next. So you don't need to know you're going to be assaulted but you do have to press the button fairly promptly.

I don't think GDPR is a problem at all. What is a problem is the cost.

I'm guessing that they have got around the potential GDPR issue by only recording when the button is pressed and not allowing the referee to access the content. But that will of course make the approved devices far more expensive than your average bodycam.