Former stadium judges demanded that the Serbia camp be used to deal with it ... and specify:
8 negative observations about the performance of the "mouse", the most prominent of which is his frequent interference in ruling decisions
The Referees Committee seeks to correct the mistakes that accompanied the use of the "mouse" in the previous period. Photography: Osama Abu Ghanem
picture
Former stadium judges identified eight negative observations on the performance of video referee technique (mouse) during the past season that was canceled, whether at the level of the Arab Gulf League or First Division. During their conversation with Emirates Today, they demanded the necessity of paying attention to these observations and addressing them in order to improve the performance of the "whistle" next season.
They said that the observations related to “the insistence of some arena rulers on their decisions despite the clarity of their mistakes in it, the absence of the required cooperation between the arena’s referee and the“ mouse ”room to reduce the errors, the frequent interference of the referee’s video, and the support of some rulers of the arena despite its apparent error, and the presence of Some of them were lenient in passing some arbitration cases, in addition to the dependence of some of the arena referees on the (mouse) in decision-making, and some referees wasting a long time watching the video clip, which negatively affects the game, as well as the lack of a clear mechanism for the issue of the application of the mouse, And knowing when he is allowed to intervene in arbitration cases or not », stressing the importance of judges stadiums relying on themselves in making decisions, and not resorting to video judgments except in a very narrow range, and only in difficult cases.
They said: "We hope that the referees committee will focus during the external camp of stadium judges in Serbia on the negatives that accompanied the application of video refereeing technique, in order to avoid their recurrence during the new season, especially in light of the great interest that the referee receives."
The head of the referees committee in the former FIFA, the former international, Muhammad Omar, confirmed: “Despite the presence of the mouse technique, the canceled season witnessed cases in some matches that (the video referee) was not successful, whose role is limited to reducing arbitration errors and giving everyone Right his right ».
He stressed that "it is not in the interest of the game in general to waste a long time between watching the arena judge for the video shot and making a decision," stressing the importance of speeding up the game without rushing to make decisions.
He said, "The external camp in Serbia is a good opportunity for the Referees Committee to focus heavily on the issue of implementing video judgments, especially since a large number of video judges participate in this camp."
In turn, the former international referee, Muslim Ahmed, considered that the problems of the "mouse" are known to all the sports street, and those concerned with the affairs of arbitration, stressing that the referees committee had succeeded to a large extent before the period of suspension of the canceled league in dealing with these problems, but this is not at the level of ambition.
He said, "The referee’s frequent interferences with video in some matches reach five per match only, in addition to the almost total dependence of some referees on the (mouse)”. He continued, "The role of the video referee is to deliver information and provide advice to the arena referee, who remains the first and last decision maker." He stressed that if the referee is satisfied with the advice of the "mouse", then there is no reason for him to come to watch the case on the video screen.
Muslim Ahmed stressed "the importance of not relying on the arena judge to a large extent on the video referee, but rather on his personality, arbitration skill and experience, and resorting to (the mouse) should not take place except in very difficult cases." He explained: "The normal rate for a (mouse) in every match is once every five games, while we have the opposite."
The international, and a member of the referees committee of the former Football Association, Muhammad Al-Junaibi, stressed the importance of the referees committee and the people supervising the application of the "mouse" technique to put in place a clear mechanism through which the referee works and knows when to intervene in arbitration cases or not, so that it is known to the clubs and the street. The athlete, to avoid any angry reactions from the clubs. Al-Junaibi indicated that he is optimistic that the coming period will witness the referees committee addressing any negatives that accompanied the application of video judging technology, considering that the referees have taken a sufficient period since the beginning of the application of the technology, and it is assumed that they have reached sufficient experience in dealing with it and applying it optimally.
For his part, the referee and a former member of the referee committee in the Football Association, Ibrahim Al Muhairi, affirmed that “it is unacceptable to have a video referee and let the obvious errors pass without review”, pointing to the need to increase the level of cooperation between the “mouse” room and the arena referee, which is what It needs more education and tests for stadium judges on this technology.
The 8 notes on the performance of the "mouse"
1- The insistence of some of the arena rulers on their decisions, even though they are wrong.
2- The absence of cooperation between the arena ruler and the "mouse" to reduce mistakes.
3- The presence of leniency by some video judges despite the clarity of the arbitration case.
4- Some video judges support the arena referee’s decision, even though it is a mistake.
5- The dependency of some rulers on relying on the "mouse".
6- A long time wasted by the arena judge in watching the video clip before making his decision.
7 - The absence of a clear mechanism regarding the "mouse" through knowing when to intervene in cases or not.
8- The referee intervenes frequently during the match.
The past season witnessed many objections from clubs over the errors of the whistle and "mouse".