The Ref Stop

2x standard 1 x above 1 x below 6-5

WAFCryan2014 said:
What would you say makes the difference from getting promoted from level 4 to 3?
Click to expand...

Making no mistakes! The candidates for L3 have the ability to be everywhere, in charge and do everything well. If you watch them, they look like they are the best person on the FOP and refereeing below their level. In the same way that some players look better than the rest of the players.

There is no single item, every referee is different so every solution is different.
 
The Ref Stop
lincs22 said:
Making no mistakes! The candidates for L3 have the ability to be everywhere, in charge and do everything well. If you watch them, they look like they are the best person on the FOP and refereeing below their level. In the same way that some players look better than the rest of the players.

There is no single item, every referee is different so every solution is different.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply! For someone who gets 4-3, how many season on average would it take?
 
So essentially, the range of 0 - 100 allows for the idea that if observed against the L4 criteria, a brand new L9 referee would actually score towards the very bottom end, while a select group ref in a difficult game would be expected to be well in the 90's. But in reality, only L4's are actually marked against those criteria, so we end up with everyone in a fairly tight range of 69 - 76?
 
.But in reality, only L4's are actually marked against those criteria, so we end up with everyone in a fairly tight range of 69 - 76?[/QUOTE]

That's probably why it's very competitive at level 4+
 
we had our bandings in the yorkshire pool not so long ago, they absolutely are tight with fractions of a mark between different bands!

it's always been this way though for as long as I've been on the pool (this is my 4th year) but generally if you're averaging below 72.5 you'll be in band E and above 74 in band A.

That's shifted up slightly i think with the new observation format / criteria but it's still not far from the mark.

I find that i'm having the best year i've had at this level and probably wont get promoted because of one poor mark at the start of the assessment period, but that's how it goes unfortunately! just better keep it up next year then!
 
GraemeS said:
So essentially, the range of 0 - 100 allows for the idea that if observed against the L4 criteria, a brand new L9 referee would actually score towards the very bottom end, while a select group ref in a difficult game would be expected to be well in the 90's. But in reality, only L4's are actually marked against those criteria, so we end up with everyone in a fairly tight range of 69 - 76?
Click to expand...

Now L4, L3 and L2B are marked against the same competencies.
Using this marking guide, there is no reason why a L7 get a mid 60's. It is how you deal with what happens in the game more that general ability that is marked on.
 
WAFCryan2014 said:
Thanks for the reply! For someone who gets 4-3, how many season on average would it take?
Click to expand...

Can be one season, if you are that good. There have been referees promoted to L3 in their first (and therefore only) season at L4. More likely - your will into your third/fourth season before you understand what is needed and able to achieve the next level.
 
lincs22 said:
@Mintyref - while the range may be tight, the standard of L4 referees is also tight. To get to this level, they have certain abilities.

Even with small marking criteria, the better (and weaker) referees are noticeable. The better referees tend to get the higher profile matches and the better observers. In turn they have excellent performance, so ability awards higher marks. Using the weaker referees on a known challenging match would create the referee issues, which they may not be able to handle at that stage of their career.

The cream rises and becomes L3.
Click to expand...
"Coughbullshit".....
 
It took me 5 seasons to get out of level 4. I got gradually better every season and closer to the top of the bandings, then in the 4th year I averaged 79 on assessors and was in band A for club marks but didn't go up. To say I was gutted would be an understatement, but I knuckled down and the following season averaged 80.67 and went up in first place.

Of course the marks have been massively lowered since then so if you average 79 and don't go up I'd be calling the police let alone the FA ..! In terms of what you need to get promoted ...

- As Lincs has said, no mistakes. You are only looking at 5 or 6 observations, so realistically one major mistake will kill your chances, it is just too competitive to think that won't be the case.

- Luck, and lots of it. Not as bad now the marks are closer together, but 10 years ago which observers you got could make a massive difference, and you wanted the ones that liked marking in the 80s rather than the ones where you had to perform miracles to get above 75. Luck was also needed in the games - back then with you needing to average high 70s to go up the last thing you needed was a game where nothing happened as you can't demonstrate your skills. That's still the case now of course, but the impact is lower due to the condensed marks.

- Commitment, availability and administration. If you help out the RefsSec by being reliable and professional he will start to trust you, and that means you might just get the games where you can show your ability, and get kept away from the games that are likely to finish 7-0. Conversely, repeatedly annoy him by not closing dates, not sending match reports on time, not acknowledging games, etc, then when the juicy game comes up don't expect to be appointed to it.

- Generally be better than all other referees on the league ..!

Then remember that it gets much, much harder once you get to L3. By the end of my time at L4 it was pretty much a breeze and I found most games fairly easy, the same most definitely could not be said at L3, even four years later when I stepped back down. Better players, faster games, much more travelling, bigger crowds, I was often totally mentally and physically exhausted when I got home, something that rarely happened at L4.
 
Cor I opened a can of worms. The main thing at the moment I am enjoying my referee. I don't even think as far ahead as my next match. Level 3/4 seems along way off.
 
Last edited:
Just looked at the first one........

So...out of 6 competencies....5 were standard expected, 1 was above standard.....yet overall you were above standard? That doesn't make any sense at all.
You have a development point for Positioning & Movement, yet were rated "Above Standard"......again makes no sense.

The timed examples should have been in the main body of the report, not in the Strengths/Development section.....makes it look very messy.
Nothing in the observation stands out as "Above Standard".......reads totally "Standard Expected".......can only think that your CFA doesn't do much in the way of quality checking what their observers are doing/reporting.

None of which is your fault.

Dare I read the rest?

** 2nd one **

4 Standard Expected, 2 Below Standard and yet Below Standard overall? Again, doesn't make much sense. In the majority of competencies you are standard expected.....so how can you be below standard overall?
Slightly better put together, but only 2 development points? For a Below Standard you would expect there to be 3 Dev Points.
 
** 3rd One **

Best put together one yet.....and one I would have most confidence in being a true reflection of your performance. Although if your positioning was out enough to miss 4 definite fouls, might have gone Below Standard on that as well. But a much more accomplished report from the observer.

** 4th one **

Oh dear.
Nothing to justify a "challenging" match.....5 cautions and 1 dismissal doesn't justify it. No mention of overall foul count or anything else to suggest that this was anything other than a normal match.
Observer clearly feels that you missed a penalty yet still gives you "standard expected" in AoL......when really, if the observer is convinced you missed a KMI, you would expect that to be "below standard".
No timed examples to justify the "above standard" marks.
Positioning was an issue again, and considering this is 6-5, I would be hovering over "below standard" for being static on corners and having your back to NAR's.

Please note, these comments are not in any way a criticism of you......they are a critique of the observers producing the reports. Reports which are supposed to help you, and your RDO, develop you into a better referee.
There is precious little to work with in most of those reports....they are vague, misleading and I, personally, would be ashamed to send in reports like the first one.
How are you supposed to develop with observers writing such shoddy reports like that is beyond me.

One thing I will say is that positioning has been a theme through all of the reports. If you do get promoted you will need to work really hard on this area of your game if you are considering going for level 4.
The fact it is a common theme for each report may (should) give your RDO some pause for thought over the promotion, as you haven't addressed the issue as it has been raised by 4 different observers?

Not being promoted is not the end of the world......sometimes we all need a bit of extra time to consolidate new skills and adapt to a higher level....refereeing is no different. The important thing is to try and take something from every observation to work on, and use it become a better official.
 
Padfoot said:
Just looked at the first one........

So...out of 6 competencies....5 were standard expected, 1 was above standard.....yet overall you were above standard? That doesn't make any sense at all.
You have a development point for Positioning & Movement, yet were rated "Above Standard"......again makes no sense.

The timed examples should have been in the main body of the report, not in the Strengths/Development section.....makes it look very messy.
Nothing in the observation stands out as "Above Standard".......reads totally "Standard Expected".......can only think that your CFA doesn't do much in the way of quality checking what their observers are doing/reporting.

None of which is your fault.

Dare I read the rest?

** 2nd one **

4 Standard Expected, 2 Below Standard and yet Below Standard overall? Again, doesn't make much sense. In the majority of competencies you are standard expected.....so how can you be below standard overall?
Slightly better put together, but only 2 development points? For a Below Standard you would expect there to be 3 Dev Points.
Click to expand...
I assume that I got below standard in AOL that effects the weighting
 
Mintyref said:
As an outsider looking in then Brian, what is the point of having such a wide range of marking options if they are not used? Such a narrow 'norm' seems to make it difficult to stand out from the crowd, every one will be there or thereabouts? Yes?
Click to expand...
Sorry for not replying to this sooner @Mintyref

The range is there for use but in truth in most games, there will be no opportunity for the referee to demonstrate that they can deliver against the relevant competency. For example under Application of Law, 2 of the criteria linked directly to the issue of yellow cards and 1 directly to a red card. So if you don't show either card, you and if you don't demonstrate 4 of the remaining 7 AND don't make a mistake , then the most you are likely to get is a 7.5. Similarly in the other 2 heavily weighted competency areas of Decision Making and Match Control.

To get a really high mark, you need a high tempo game, where you get the right viewing angle to see the offence and then make the big decision, issuing the right colour of card and dealing with the aftermath effectively OVER and OVER again. this gives the game it's challenging feel and helps you clock up marks.

If it's a quiet game, it takes a skilful observer to note the usual little humdrum things that help keep a game under control, such as the quiet word while waiting for a goal kick, tipping the wink to a captain that his number 6 has no more chances or playing a bloody good advantage that results in a goal and then coming back to caution the offender.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Sorry for not replying to this sooner @Mintyref

The range is there for use but in truth in most games, there will be no opportunity for the referee to demonstrate that they can deliver against the relevant competency. For example under Application of Law, 2 of the criteria linked directly to the issue of yellow cards and 1 directly to a red card. So if you don't show either card, you and if you don't demonstrate 4 of the remaining 7 AND don't make a mistake , then the most you are likely to get is a 7.5. Similarly in the other 2 heavily weighted competency areas of Decision Making and Match Control.

To get a really high mark, you need a high tempo game, where you get the right viewing angle to see the offence and then make the big decision, issuing the right colour of card and dealing with the aftermath effectively OVER and OVER again. this gives the game it's challenging feel and helps you clock up marks.

If it's a quiet game, it takes a skilful observer to note the usual little humdrum things that help keep a game under control, such as the quiet word while waiting for a goal kick, tipping the wink to a captain that his number 6 has no more chances or playing a bloody good advantage that results in a goal and then coming back to caution the offender.
Click to expand...
Thanks Brian, actually makes a lot of sense........not what I was expecting at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top