Referees are using secret recording devices to protect themselves from the threat of false allegations, an i investigation can reveal.
Some officials in the EFL and non-league are keeping small audio devices – sometimes disguised as pens – on themselves to covertly record exchanges on the pitch during matches and in their offices after games. Some also use smartphones to record post-game discussions.
i has listened to audio recordings, with multiple referee sources indicating that the practice has occurred at matches in the Championship, League One and League Two. The EFL declined to comment but insisted it was not aware of it happening.
i understands that the practice began at least as far back as 2013, and has increased in recent years as referees face more hostility from managers.
The referees wish to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. Taking unauthorised recording devices on to the field of play is outlawed by law 5 of Ifab’s laws of the game.
Rule 5.5 states that beyond “equipment for communicating with other match officials – buzzer/beep flags, headsets etc” and “EPTS [electronic performance and tracking systems] or other fitness monitoring equipment”: “Referees and other ‘on-field’ match officials are prohibited from wearing jewellery or any other electronic equipment, including cameras.”
i, however, was permitted by the referees involved to publish transcripts of exchanges, provided no managers, referees or clubs were identified.
More from Football
'I need my lawyer!': Premier League managers react to Chelsea's record-breaking transfer window03 February, 2023
Brighton are Ireland's new favourite team with 'first class' Ferguson leading next generation03 February, 2023
Chelsea to revise transfer strategy after January spree – but don’t expect a seismic shift03 February, 2023In one exchange, the referee has to repeatedly state that they will not let the manager “bully” them. One exchange begins with the manager entering the office and saying, “I just wanted to say I thought you were really poor today.” One official repeatedly attempts to end the conversation, but the manager refuses to leave their office.
A manager accuses a referee of being “rude and patronising” when the official responds to their comments by explaining decisions they made. Another manager demands to know from the referee: “Have you ever played the game?”
The discussions frequently escalate into arguments with raised voices and both parties attempting to speak over one another.
Referees say they have felt the need to take these drastic steps in order to protect themselves from the potential of false allegations. One prominent refereeing source said it was happening a lot. Referees have found that, particularly lower down the pyramid, managers will speak to an official in their office afterwards then falsely claim to the media they received an apology for decisions.
The PGMOL, the body which manages all officials in the Premier League, EFL and Football Association competitions, declined to comment, but i understands match officials use an approved communication system to aid teamwork and game management and that on occasion these in-game conversations are recorded for use in training and development.
It was claimed to i that secret audio recordings have previously been used in at least one disciplinary matter involving the FA. While the FA declined to comment, the governing body maintained that it was unaware of the practice happening and that covert recordings would unlikely to be admissible in cases. The FA would investigate any instances it became aware of as it would breach the rules of the game, i was told.
It is not illegal in the UK to record somebody without their permission provided it is for personal use. And if a person wanted to use a covert recording as evidence in a court of a law the judge can decide whether to permit it.
This latest revelation can be interpreted as a cry for help from officials who feel they are not afforded enough protection by the game’s authorities.
“Communication between managers and referees is a huge problem,” Martin Cassidy, chief executive of charity Ref Support UK and a former employee in the FA’s referee department, told i. “Some of the conversations that take place in tunnels and away from cameras, if that was in a pub there would be a mass brawl. There needs to be an understanding of the environment away from the cameras.”
Actions and comments from high-profile managers in the Premier League do little to convince other officials that they will not be mimicked by coaches lower down the pyramid. Nor do the punishments for offences.
Jurgen Klopp was fined £30,000 after being sent off by referee Anthony Taylor for screaming in the face of assistant referee Gary Beswick when Liverpool were not awarded a free-kick in a game against Manchester City last October – a punishment only increased to a one-match ban after the FA appealed against the ruling of the independent regulatory commission.
Mikel Arteta, the Arsenal manager, has also drawn criticism for his touchline behaviour this season, including describing the refereeing decisions of Andy Madley as “scandalous” during their game against Newcastle United in January.
Before being sacked as Chelsea manager last year, Thomas Tuchel was fined £20,000 for claiming Anthony Taylor should no longer referee his club’s games.
There has long been a call from officials for body cameras to be worn at all times and Ref Support UK has been a driving force in pushing for change. For several years the charity campaigned for the cameras to be permitted in the laws of the game and implemented by the English FA.
It is believed it will cut down – and potentially eradicate – violence, threats and intimidation towards officials and can be used as an evidence-gathering tool. It is also hoped that recordings can be used for referees and officials to review their own performance and the tone they use when addressing players and managers.
“Referees have told us that to protect themselves they’ve been using recording devices, such as pens and phones, at all levels,” Cassidy said, adding that abuse towards fourth officials – whose role it is to monitor events from the touchlines – is “more prevalent at professional level”.
“They’re in a very vulnerable position, right next to the fans,” he said. “The amount of abuse they get.
“Referees come to me and say they have a recording and I’ve said you can’t use it according to the FA disciplinary process. But what’s the difference between using that and video footage from Match of the Day?”
Major strides have, so far, been taken towards body cameras being used in football. Following Ref Support UK’s work, FA chief executive Mark Bullingham tabled the idea with Ifab last year and football’s lawmakers agreed to trials taking place in grass-roots football in the UK.
A pilot scheme could start as early as next month [FEB], after grass-roots referees across leagues were selected for trials and fitted with equipment. However, concerns remain that should trials be successful body cameras will only be used at grass-roots level.
“I’m really pleased the Ifab and FA listened to us,” Cassidy said. “I think this will be the most positive change for referees ever. Football needs body cams at all levels. It will give unique insight into the problems referees face and what they deal with from managers.
“What are people trying to hide? Surely the FA always wants to find out the truth. This is a great way of doing that. Everyone wants the game to be more transparent.”
from Football - inews.co.uk https://ift.tt/fAl3EzP
Post a Comment