Club Licencing

[FairWeatherFan]

22 minutes ago, lithgierose said:

But if camelon are aiming for a licence. Which I am sure they are. Have they met the floodlight criteria set out by the sfa. Seems not to the ref, if he used that reason to call the game off. If the lights do meet the correct criteria. Can't camelon claim compensation from the sfa for lost revenue? 

Camelon are working on their license and know that the 2020 requirements will set a minimum lux level. They've had their previous test run with mobile floodlights that was successful.

The two variants last night were the new permanently installed floodlights and a new ref.

Maybe the installation wasn't 100% complete? Otherwise the suggestion is Camelon bought a lemon.

So some doubt will be given to the ref since there's history of refs calling off games that many people would consider playable.

Edit: As for compensation. I don't know who that would lie with. However, I'm sure Camelon will be looking into it if they feel right in the matter.

Edited November 14, 2019 by FairWeatherFan

[GlamourBaws]

it has surely got to be the height of the lights that is the problem here? Any ball above head height has the ability to be lost in one of the string of fairy lights along the enclosure.

The marvelous thing with cameras is that you can do with them what you like... make it look darker / lighter, maximise light etc. To that end, I suggest that the photos are hardly impartial if put up by either Camelon or the visiting team. 

No matter what, Camelon will likely have some work to do here. 

[gaz5]

Camelon are working on their license and know that the 2020 requirements will set a minimum lux level. They've had their previous test run with mobile floodlights that was successful.
The two variants last night were the new permanently installed floodlights and a new ref.
Maybe the installation wasn't 100% complete? Otherwise the suggestion is Camelon bought a lemon.
So some doubt will be given to the ref since there's history of refs calling off games that many people would consider playable.
Edit: As for compensation. I don't know who that would lie with. However, I'm sure Camelon will be looking into it if they feel right in the matter.

For info, the average Lux level isn't the only requirement for 2020, there's the min/max of 0.25 as well.

I'll confess this is an area well outside of my area of knowledge, but the second part of that is the one that it has been inferred may be an issue to clubs with lights on short pylons, as it's to do with variance in lighting levels across different areas of the park (or something).

When testing is done, the company that do it look at something like 50 locations per half to measure that variance and to ensure not only that the average is 200, but that the variance across the park isn't outside of tolerance either.

Having been to (and played on) a few grounds with older lights on shorter pylons it's definitely the case that some areas of the park were better lit than others. I'm pretty sure based on the licence visit we had recently that the old floodlights at Westfield that we on pylons around the park, the top of the old enclosure and the the top of the pavillion (still there) wouldn't have been suitable based on the conformity across the pitch.

[MAC THE KNIFE]

so does a match ref for a night game now have to carry a light meter & an alternative light source ? 

[gaz5]

so does a match ref for a night game now have to carry a light meter & an alternative light source ?[emoji362] [emoji363]

The referee gets the final say on all things "game on". We've probably all seen games called off when both teams are happy to play because an official doesn't think the pitch is playable. Ultimately it's the refs call and no one else's, that's part of the job.

For licenced clubs, floodlight testing will be part of the licencing/re audit process. You won't get (or retain) your licence until the lights are tested and have passed per the criteria.

In that situation I would guess you had a better argument if a match official believed on the day they weren't suitable, if they had passed an annual audit, but ultimately would still be the match officials call just like everything else surrounding the game.

[parsforlife]

The referee gets the final say on all things "game on". We've probably all seen games called off when both teams are happy to play because an official doesn't think the pitch is playable. Ultimately it's the refs call and no one else's, that's part of the job.

For licenced clubs, floodlight testing will be part of the licencing/re audit process. You won't get (or retain) your licence until the lights are tested and have passed per the criteria.

In that situation I would guess you had a better argument if a match official believed on the day they weren't suitable, if they had passed an annual audit, but ultimately would still be the match officials call just like everything else surrounding the game.

Player safety(which is pretty much what the ref is deciding) always falls on the ref. However a ref turning up at a ground with a licence, testing certificates for the lights etc is far less likely to be thinking ‘wonder if the lighting is ok’ vs one that’s turning up to a new installation.

If I was a club with recently installed floodlights then a lux meter would be a worthwhile investment to back yourself in any discussion with a ref. In fact it should probably be a a licence requirement to have one on site.

[FairWeatherFan]

6 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

 

Player safety(which is pretty much what the ref is deciding) always falls on the ref. However a ref turning up at a ground with a licence, testing certificates for the lights etc is far less likely to be thinking ‘wonder if the lighting is ok’ vs one that’s turning up to a new installation.

If I was a club with recently installed floodlights then a lux meter would be a worthwhile investment to back yourself in any discussion with a ref. In fact it should probably be a a licence requirement to have one on site.

Taking the extent of their claims with a grain of salt due to it being rival fans but some of the Linlithgow fans have been dismissive of the new lights having been there on Saturday.

So I think you're right in the ref likely having heard they were being used for the first time, and only just installed, was perhaps a little extra thorough in assessing them than he otherwise would have been.

[lithgierose]

12 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

 

Player safety(which is pretty much what the ref is deciding) always falls on the ref. However a ref turning up at a ground with a licence, testing certificates for the lights etc is far less likely to be thinking ‘wonder if the lighting is ok’ vs one that’s turning up to a new installation.

If I was a club with recently installed floodlights then a lux meter would be a worthwhile investment to back yourself in any discussion with a ref. In fact it should probably be a a licence requirement to have one on site.

 

What about the height of the lights? 

[pipedreamer]

9 hours ago, lithgierose said:

What about the height of the lights? 

They look no lower than Hill of Beath or Dundonalds lights which are license compliant.

[gaz5]

They look no lower than Hill of Beath or Dundonalds lights which are license compliant.

*currently.

No one's lights have been tested against the new requirements yet.

[mojmeister]

Heard last night that there was an sfa representative in attendance on Tuesday who was quite happy with the lights and it was purely down to the referee to call off the game

[lithgierose]

1 hour ago, mojmeister said:

Heard last night that there was an sfa representative in attendance on Tuesday who was quite happy with the lights and it was purely down to the referee to call off the game

Was he solely there to check the lights? The game was wednesday

[mojmeister]

As far as I am aware he was there to check the lights. Club secretary told me the sfa would be there to do just that some weeks ago. And it was Wednesday right enough. Old age is a terrible thing.

[lithgierose]

21 minutes ago, mojmeister said:

As far as I am aware he was there to check the lights. Club secretary told me the sfa would be there to do just that some weeks ago. And it was Wednesday right enough. Old age is a terrible thing.

He might have been there and checked the temporary lights and passed them as OK. But these are new ones that were not even finished last Saturday. And in the photo from Wednesday night. You can still see the scaffold tower round one of the lamp posts. If they  were passed, the ref could be looking at getting a bill for lost revenue? 

[FairWeatherFan]

4 minutes ago, lithgierose said:

He might have been there and checked the temporary lights and passed them as OK. But these are new ones that were not even finished last Saturday. And in the photo from Wednesday night. You can still see the scaffold tower round one of the lamp posts. If they  were passed, the ref could be looking at getting a bill for lost revenue? 

He got the day mixed up but he's saying there was a SFA rep there for the Edinburgh City game. That it was known within the club the SFA rep would be there for the game weeks in advance because it was meant to be the first game under the new lights..

[AlanCamelonfan]

1 hour ago, lithgierose said:

He might have been there and checked the temporary lights and passed them as OK. But these are new ones that were not even finished last Saturday. And in the photo from Wednesday night. You can still see the scaffold tower round one of the lamp posts. If they  were passed, the ref could be looking at getting a bill for lost revenue? 

I'm not sure about that but I think the lights probably were good enough Edinburgh be hiking the pressure on but with small works to be done to them

[lithgierose]

23 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

I'm not sure about that but I think the lights probably were good enough Edinburgh be hiking the pressure on but with small works to be done to them

so edinburgh put preassure on ref to call the game off ?

[Jason King]

I'd doubt it, it's the most meaningless game of the season for Edinburgh. You think they'd have wanted it on to give their stiffs a runout.

[AlanCamelonfan]

5 minutes ago, Jason King said:

I'd doubt it, it's the most meaningless game of the season for Edinburgh. You think they'd have wanted it on to give their stiffs a runout.

Apparently not. Apparently they wanted the game in edinburgh

[Jason King]

So why did they reverse it in the first place?