I think there could be legal issues and then there could be self-imposed safeguards put in place by clubs and/or stadiums.

There may also be a difference in broader game photos from the sideline and close-ups?

Bringing the ABL into this is a straw man argument, IMO.

Under 16's I agree with photo and video control. However maybe it should be different for under 18's. Interestingly 16 & 17 year olds can leave home have sex and have all sorts of other rights. I think if they agree it should be OK.

In melbourne over the weekend, photos/video were allowed to be taken as long as you signed with with your name address and drivers licence.

This seems a senisble safeguard from the low lifes.

In terms of child safety it is not the camera or video that is the really danger. As these are obvious to all present that photo/s vision are being taken.

It is the hidden photo or might i say telephone camera that is the danger for any child in any situation.

memories are pricless, and it when you look back with your son/daughters child (your grandchild) then the real value of memories come out.

Common sense with guildlines is all that is needed and there is no issue.

If you dont want you child photo taken just say "please don't take my childs photo" and guess what it will never been taken.

Portait photo's can be manipulate along with any other photo form so it is not photo that is the problem rather the person taken the photo.

We must all keep an eye open for strangers, people we dont know taking photos of people or children we do know.

Unfortunately there are no safeguards as low lifes find there way around them. Lets all keep an eye out for the low lifes.

Maybe we should look at the statistics of child abuse/safety.

In a club situation the it is more likely to happen within a family rather than with the club. So I suggest we leave this to the experts to decide what is best.

Hey #85740,

Maybe I'm naive. I have not come across any instance where kids that play in district basketball competitions have been "harmed by predators" through being photographed.

The type of photographers we have to be wary of go elsewhere to take their shots.

Agreed, they stink, but we don't need to worry too much about that aroung the bball court!

If this is not a big thing. Why then is BSA making all coaches get a police clearance before they can coach now?? I think people are very naive to think it wont happen. Lets hope it doesn't!

wow this has become a little extreeme. i havent heard of it being such an issue in other sports. its been reported in the media of swimming coaches being found out to be dodgy.SASA (south australian swimming association) haven't inforced police checks!! so why are basketball coaches having the checks there must have been quite a few seruious problems to have taken it to this level.

BSA has a duty of care for it's players.

Paedophiles don't have sign saying they are, so it's a case of having to screen coaches and be wary of everyone else.

You can't be too careful.

The issue of police checks for volunteers involved with children is cutting across all activities. It is a sensible precaution to ensure that people with prior convictions are excluded from coaching. However, they are only the ones that have been caught.

As for taking photos, so long as both teams are advised beforehand, I really struggle to see the problem in comparison with sports such as swimming, diving or athletics which have far more revealing uniforms.

To reduce the risk to children, and for false allegations against coaches, an adult and a junior player should never be alone together. A coach should ask the second-last parent to wait at training until the last parent arrives to pick up their child.

I think that its a "prevention is better than the cure" type thing. The last thing that basketball in this state needs is more bad publicity and at least this way BSA can say they are doing something about it before any real problems arise.

The police check thing has been around for a few years now and I was wondering: How many of the Clubs are truly enforcing it? ie, not letting someone coach until they have received this signed form back.

#85765 - Seriously, with all the education that kids these days are having rammed down their throats about this kind of thing, you honestly believe they would knowingly let someone take pictures of them in a change room?

BMG, the trouble is that the undesireables are the ones that the kids trust - which is where the troubles can start.

I know at least one club that is getting serious about the police check issue.

BC - to cover their arse. Clearly the media have generated a 'moral panic' on this issue to which we are all victims. The statistics say there is no more of this than there really was many years ago. Not that statistics are a accurate measure of its incidence anyways. I think the issue has been taken too far, from what missing stat described as the hidden phone problem to this. I think the standards need to go backwards a fair way

This is a scarey issue for the coaches, players and parents.

The last thing is a coach wants to do is be painted with this brush and, just reading this makes me feel like quitting. As a coach I often worry what would happen if in 20 yrs someone decided to extort money etc. around these kinds of accusations. How could you defend it?

We have to be careful with this discussion that it does not cast dispersions on everyone involved.

1. Assume coaches are there for the right reasons.

2. Protect our game and the people in it by encouraging your kids to come forward with any issues

3. everyone in our sport needs to make sure there are always more than 1 person with the child. If you have to talk to a child in a one on one situation do so in public.

I like the points 85794 makes.

I coach an older team but I personally would never coach a younger kids team at the risk of been painted with this kind of brush. I have spoken to fellow coaches and former teammates (who would make great coaches) and they are in the same situation.

As a side point....the school eistedfford system in NSW has outright banned ALL photography for their concerts, after MythBusters had an article about how flash photography can make clothes transparent. I dont know if they proved or disproved it, but I thought it quite silly.

I can understand the need for child protection, and rules in place to protect the fact our kids are vulnerable to predators, but I also strongly despair of the loss of so many liberties for the innocent, caused by a depraved few.

I had this case not 3 weeks ago when I was taking photos of my son playing football (literally action shots, him out on the field)..when I was challenged about why I needed a camera when there were kids around.

Remember police checks as only valid to the time they are issued. If you don't have a record, i.e never been caught what good are they? You could have been a very clever paedophile.

Damrob will only take photos where we hold the appropriate media accreditation, or upon the direct request of a sporting club. We have never used a flash during games beleiveing it to be too much of a distraction to both players and spectators.

What about the Messenger papers? Who give them authorisation for these photos, and what they take on Saturday mornings?

Media have to be credentialled, which normally means checks and balances put in place.

I know when I used to get my media pass for either OzHoops or the WNBL site, on our applications we would have to nominate who our editor or cheif of staff was, as the buck would stop there. There is also a very strict code of conduct for NBL accreditation.

I think you would also find the journalist union/fraternity has a very strict code of conduct themselves, which would cover photographers and photographic journalism.