Former stadium judges described video technology (mouse) interventions in arbitration decisions during the sixth round of the Arabian Gulf Football League, which concluded yesterday, amounting to 10 times, in a frightening number, pointing out that video technology is a catalyst for the referee, and that the large number of its interventions in Amendment or correction of the referee's decision is a negative point that reduces the assessment of the referee and a kind of dependency and weakness, especially in terms of the technical and arbitration skill of the referee in dealing with the game, stressing that the intervention «mouse» is supposed to be in difficult arbitration cases and not easy and clear as happened in some The sixth round matches, i Boa referee committee to deal with the judges of the stadiums principle of reward and punishment so that the referee does not repeat the same mistakes after each round.
They told «Emirates Today»: «the number of times the referee called the arena by video technology in order to modify or correct a decision made is a negative point in the right of governance».
Former international referee Muslim Ahmed, for his part, stressed that the fewer times the referee is called by the video referee, the more normal it is. He added: «According to the protocol on the application of video refereeing technology, the referee does not resort to the referee video, but the last is to call him, and the instructions of the Legislative Council of the International Football Federation, as well as the International Federation of Football and the confederations confirms that the referee is a catalyst to rule the arena» .
He continued: «In some cases the referee is in a very easy position during which he can make a correct decision, as happened in the game Kalba and Bani Yas, at the 93rd minute there was a clear penalty for Bani Yas, but the referee did not take a decision, and when he was called before ( "He insisted on his decision even though it was a mistake."
Musallam Ahmed pointed out that when the referee enters the field he must forget that there is a video referee assisting him, and described the number of times the referee entered the video during the sixth round with a frightening number.
He said: «must not exceed four or five cases that the number is the ideal and normal rate, but in our league since the first round we rarely find a round without the interventions of the referee video».
Musallam Ahmed, technical director of the committee of referees, asked to intervene to remedy this, stressing the importance of intensifying the aspect of how the rulers deal with video technology and linking this matter with the principle of reward and punishment. For his part, considered the former member of the referees committee in the Football Association, Mohammed Al-Junaibi, that the frequent interference of video technology in the decisions of the referee evidence of dependency and fear of the referee to take the right decision, since there is a body intervening on his behalf to correct or amend his decision, stressing that addressing the issue Dependence on the «mouse» is represented in the confidence of the referee himself, and secondly to forget the moment he entered the stadium that there is a body that adjusts its decisions. Al-Junaibi pointed out that the frequent interference of mouse technology in arbitration cases is a negative factor not only on the referee, but on all parties of the game, including both teams and the public, considering that referencing the video is in itself required to ascertain and address the arbitration error according to the cases where allowed to « The mouse, however, intervenes, but the frequent use of it is negative for the government. For his part, said former referee Ibrahim al-Muhairi: «In general since the application of video technology in the UAE league, such a factor in most of the decisions of the referees, evidence that there are many cases where (mouse) intervention after the decision of the referee».
He said: «The large interference (mouse) in the arbitration decisions give evidence that there is a technical problem, whether in the estimates of the referees or the lack of proper positioning or lack of awareness of the importance of the game, and the presence of video technology gave the impression of the judgment that his decision can be amended, and this in itself "Thinking is wrong. Referees must outdo the referee." For his part, former chairman of the Committee of Referees, Mohammed Omar: «referee video has become one of the laws of football must be applied, considering that the referee of excellence rarely resort to (the mouse)».
10 cases in which «mouse» appeared in the sixth round
1 - Sharjah - Fujairah «was used (the mouse) in one case when expelling Fujairah defender Abdullah Saleh».
2 - Kalba - Bani Yas «The technology was used in four times, a penalty for the benefit of Kalba, and not to give another to Beni
Yas, the expulsion of the Bani Yas player Awana, as well as the expulsion of Bani Yas player Suhail Nubi ».
3 - Khorfakkan - Al Nasr «The technique was used once by calculating a penalty for the victory of which Negredo scored the goal of the game».
4 - Al Wahda - Al Dhafra «Video referee was used to calculate the goal of the unit after the ball crossed the line».
5 - Wasl - Hatta «used (mouse) only once to expel Khaled Sabil».
6 - Youth Ahli - Ajman «The referee calculated a goal for the benefit of Ahli after the use of (mouse)».
7 - Al Ain - Al Jazeera «The referee returned to video technology before the expulsion of Al Ain defender Mohammed Shaker».