Are you ready to go live for TV

It is one thing to do it on occasion, as is done for example when players or coaches in the NFL are "miked" and then edited highlights are replayed later from tape. That can be both entertaining and educational, with little risk of unintended backlash. I suppose it is also worth considering as a way to enhance real time internal communications between crew officials. However, going live, unedited to the outside world on a regular basis seems like a recipe for disaster. FIFA is adamant about not drawing attention to the referee to the detriment of the players or the game, so much so that they and USSF frown on anything demonstrative in the way of visual signals. It would be the height of hypocracy for them to endorse "miking" the referee. Not to mention all of the logisitcal issues, like whether someone runs a concurrent translation into German for spectators watching an Italian referee who is officiating a game between England and Spain.

 

One question: WHY?

Damn silly, but that's the French for you...

 

WOW.

I have a couple questions to see if I am reading this correctly -- I don't think they state it in so many words, but I think it implies that the referees can hear EACH OTHER. Is that correct?

I can definitely see some advantage to that. Provides MUCH more opportunity for communication between AR's and the CR or between the 4th and the CR than is currently possible with just the beeper flags.

As for the public being able to hear real time live what the referees are saying, it seems to be a double edge sword like a lot of things.

On the one hand, everyone can understand the calls so much more if they can hear the referee talking thru the match. On the other hand, if the referee mistated something in the heat of the battle, he'd really be opening himself up for a lot of potential controversy.

 

Personally I love it. I have maintained for a long time now the concept of game and player management is in the referee's interaction with the players. Being able to hear what is said , the replys and the tone and inflections can not but help less experianced referees gain insight into the behavioural mechanics by those referees who do such an outstanding job.

The instant communication with your ARs and 4th can only quicken the confirmation or denial of certain issues as they occur. Now if the players can be heard in real tone and verbatum in what is actually said in the OFINABUS or DISSENT issues might make them think twice one it is live broadcast.

I have carried mikes out onto the FOP before and in coperation with video it activates a whole sensory input into a post game review.

 

Re: Re: Are you ready to go live for TV

Right, but if you open that communication to (literally) the entire world, doesn't that destroy your ability to manage? Sometimes you say things for both teams to hear, and sometimes you say things for the benefit of one or two, and sometimes it's just between you and one player. Broadcasting that live, unedited can't work. It would only be a matter of time before your microphone was tied into the stadium PA system .... imagine the feedback you would get from the gallery. I agree it could be a great idea if it is aired live only between crew officials, but it would have to be edited and put into context for use in training other officials or for educating players, coaches and spectators.

 

Cameras?

I think it would be really cool if little cameras were affixed to the referees. Similar examples have been used with sky divers, and this little device can show what the referee saw and would be great for training along with the microphone. Heck...It would have saved Esse.

Blitz

 

According to the article, tv viewers could hear what was said on the field. I am not so sure that tv viewers might really be ready to hear ALL that is said on the field. Some of the choices of vocabulary, both by players AND officials is part of the game, and should NOT be heard by small children, or whoever else might be close to the tv.

 

I wouldn't want to be miked because I have a fumbly tongue at times. Most of my comments to the players can be very cryptic and based more on gesture than talking, so what I'm actually saying would sound kind of funny.

Not all of us have golden tongues ya know

 

Don't you think this is intended more for "entertainment" purposes rather than something productive? When they put video cameras into police cars, they did it to protect the police, mostly from false accusations. But we're finding other uses now of that video. . one, catching cops abusing their authority, and two, entertainment as we watch outrageous police video of car chases and abusive criminals on TV reality shows.

Let's face it, we enjoy our privacy and the vacumn we officiate in because it's protection. This is why the "referee's dirty little secret" (e.g., adding mystery time for an attack to complete) works so well. . we can't be held accountable. But this delves into the personal world where the discerning and condemn public shouldn't go. How many times have we said things under our breath to a fellow official about a player or coach, not to be nasty or mean, but to communicate information, that if heard and judged by other would come across as abusive? Private conversation should always be protected. If Trent Lott had said would he said in private conversation, most would of let him off the hook, understanding it wasn't "officially" said, but some still feel we in position of authority should be held to a much higher standard on and out of our roles.

For entertainment purposes and with consent, I don't see a problem. I wish we could have private conversation with our officiating team this way, and even if reviewed by an assessor that would be OK. But this is just more "reality TV" IMO.