Former stadium judges indicated that there were 6 observations in the first two rounds of the league .. and they confirm:

Restricting the freedom to rule the field and delay in reviewing cases ... the most prominent problems of the "mouse"

• Video referee technique has met with widespread controversy since its application in the Emirates stadiums.

  Photography: Osama Abu Ghanem

picture

Former stadium judges confirmed that there are observations on the performance of the video assistant referee (the mouse) during the past two rounds of the Arab Gulf Football League, including the presence of technical problems, as well as the persistence of arbitration errors affecting the match results, such as what happened in the matches of Al Ain with Shabab Al Ahly and Al Jazira with Al-Dhafra, in addition to the delay in the video technology in reviewing arbitration cases is still continuing despite the passage of more than two years since the application of this technology, in addition to the discrepancy in the performance of the video referee from one round to another, in addition to the presence of the "mouse" that limits the freedom of the arena judge in managing The match, and the video referee sometimes supports the referee’s decision, although it is a mistake instead of helping him to make the right decision, and some arena referees put the video referee as a competitor for them in managing matches and not as part of the referee’s staff, which negatively affects the process of understanding between them.

They told Emirates Today: “The Football Association and the Referees Committee must work to review and improve video technology in order to play its required role in assisting stadium judges in managing matches and reducing arbitration errors, and they must intensify training courses for referees who will rely on them to play the role of video referee, In addition to not focusing on video judges only, but also the arena ruler as he is the president in this system.

The former international referee, Abdulaziz Al-Mulla confirmed that although the video assistant referee was used to help the arena referee, the application of technology in this way damaged the competition, indicating that the video referee canceled the arena referee, because the latter became 50% dependent on him in making decisions during matches, as well as The video referee restricted the arena referee’s freedom to lead the game, pointing out that his generation of referees such as Ali Bujisim and others were imposing their personality in managing matches, as the "mouse" technique was not available.

For his part, former international referee Muhammad Al-Junaibi affirmed that he “made clear during the past two rounds of the league that the video referee technique itself needs to be updated, given that there are some problems in it, which will negatively affect the performance of the refereeing team during matches, and this is a message to the Football Association that it is necessary to repeat Considering this matter, besides that the referees committee in the Football Association must intensify training courses for referees who rely on them to play the role of video referee so that there is an optimal use of video technology in reducing time in referring cases, and at the same time reducing arbitration errors and not passing Wrong arbitration cases, in addition to the importance of unifying the concepts of video referee technology among referees so that it is known when (mouse) interferes and when not.

In turn, former football referee Ibrahim Al-Muhairi, in response to a question about the existence of technical problems in the "mouse", confirmed that the arena referee is supposed to be the main player in the stadium, and that he does not rely primarily on video technology, pointing out that it is noticeable that during The past two years have focused on video referee and forgetting about the arena referee, stressing the importance of referees continuing to work seriously to avoid mistakes.

Al Muhairi added, "Just as the arena referee has his own judgments about arbitration cases, the video referee also has his estimates whether there is a mistake or not, and in the end the error is a human error."

He explained: “The video referees must help the arena referees, and they played this role in the first round of the league and were among the main reasons for the success of the first round, but in the second round we did not expect the feedback to be counter-productive, and we hoped that there would be continuous communication for this success and not a disparity. In the performance of referees (mouse) between each round and another, because this affects the course of the competition ».

He said, "There is an observation on the performance of (the mouse), which is the delay in reviewing many cases, although it is clear. The video referee is also supposed to help the arena judge in making the right decision, not in the wrong decision."

Regarding the delay in the video judgment in reviewing cases, Ibrahim Al Muhairi said: “In general, the law did not specify a specific time for judgment, but rather allowed him to take the time that suits him in exchange for making the right decision. One of the disadvantages of the first round in the league is that the referees took time to review cases and make decisions. Saleema, while in the second round they did not take long, and sound decisions were not made. The important rule in the issue of video judging is to make the right decision, not time.

And about the extent of harmony and understanding between the arena referee and the video, he said: “We do not know what is going on between the arena referee and the video referee. The video referee may be the reason for some errors, and everyone must realize that the video referee is part of the match’s referee’s team and is not a competitor to the arena referee.” .

The most prominent remarks on the performance of the "mouse" during the first two rounds of the league

1- The occurrence of technical errors that need improvement in the coming period.

2- The delay in reviewing arbitration cases is still ongoing.

3- There is a discrepancy in the performance of the video referee from one round to another.

4- The presence of the "mouse" restricts the referee's freedom to conduct the match.

5- Supporting the referee’s decision sometimes, despite it being wrong, instead of helping him in making the right decision.

6- Some arena referees place the "mouse" as a competitor for them in managing matches, and not as part of the refereeing team.

Some arena referees consider the "video referee" a competitor in managing matches.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news