LAST week I wrote about changes to the Laws of the Game brought about by VAR, but there are other changes introduced this season.

One of these affects not players but referees, and it has surprised many.

There has been an addition to what a referee may wear or not wear. It now says that the referee is not permitted to wear a camera.

Many people may be asking why would referees want to wear a camera?

The use of cameras which can record happenings has grown considerably in recent years.

Many cyclists now wear cameras on their helmets, by which they can record any confrontation they may experience with motorists.

The police have also been equipped with cameras to wear in certain instances to record any disturbance they are called to for similar reasons, but also to protect themselves against claims made about their own behaviour.

They are also useful in identifying aggressors.

When football Laws are changed they normally have an explanation as to why they are thought necessary.

In this case it simply says ‘that it clarifies that referees and other ‘on-field’ match officials are not permitted to use or wear cameras’.

This doesn’t answer the question why referees shouldn’t wear cameras and raises the question, why it would be thought referees want to go to the effort and expense of wearing cameras.

Some link this with the young Manchester referee who called for a national referees strike against the abuse and physical attacks many officials suffer from players.

Aged just 17, he had been physically attacked several times, including being head-butted, punched and spat at, but considered his complaints were not being taken seriously enough.

It would be understandable if he felt if he could have provided video evidence of his attacks, it would not only have proved his allegations but also identified his assailants.

It would be a sad day if this sentiment turned out to be the reason for banning referees’ cameras, as it would seem to be action to protect the guilty.