The Ref Stop

AR Observation - Harsh?

M

MattTheRef

Well-Known Member
Level 4 Referee
I've just received my report from a game I did this week and i'm pretty pissed off with the mark. Am I allowed to post the full report here to see if I'm right in feeling it's harsh? Can I contest anything on the report as there's a few things with nothing written in but actually happened. For example we had a mass con and I entered the field of play significantly (into the centre circle) yet nothing is even said about this....

I feel like I had a great game and didn't miss a single thing. Managers from both teams at the end said we (as a team) were the best they had had that season. Comments from spectators afterwards echoed this yet I've scored a 71 and the only negative points in the whole report seem super petty:
"On 3 occasions you used a non-acceptable signal to advise everyone that no offside offence was being committed, which brought attention towards you when it was not required. The signal you used is often referred to as “Leading the Dog” as has never been in the laws of the Game. "
and
"When you gave the direction of throw-ins using your right hand the flag was not straight along the line but went back behind your head. If you put your index finger along the flag then this will guide the position of the flag much better and straighter."

It's my worst of the season and it's got to me if i'm honest. I would understand if I had missed something or got stuff wrong but for running with the flag low when i'm sprinting and for not being straight is just frustrating.
 
The Ref Stop
Chin up fella, frustrating as it is, you won't get promoted or demoted because of one indifferent AR mark.

Guessing the marking was 7.5 on Offsides, 7.0 on Support and 6.5 on Technical?

From my experience, the area it is tough to score well on (without getting unnecessarily 'busy') is Support. I've had plenty of 7.0's there simply because the game didn't give enough opportunity to tick enough boxes. Even one mass con won't necessarily be enough, though surprised it wasn't mentioned at all.

Technical is the one where you should be able to get to (at least) 7.5 simply by not giving the Observer anything to be picky about ... unfortunately, in this case, (in his opinion) you gave him a couple of areas which by definition is a 6.5.

I'd say, ignore the mark and bear in mind the development areas ... and keep smiling!
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Russell Jones said:
Chin up fella, frustrating as it is, you won't get promoted or demoted because of one indifferent AR mark.

Guessing the marking was 7.5 on Offsides, 7.0 on Support and 6.5 on Technical?

From my experience, the area it is tough to score well on (without getting unnecessarily 'busy') is Support. I've had plenty of 7.0's there simply because the game didn't give enough opportunity to tick enough boxes. Even one mass con won't necessarily be enough, though surprised it wasn't mentioned at all.

Technical is the one where you should be able to get to (at least) 7.5 simply by not giving the Observer anything to be picky about ... unfortunately, in this case, (in his opinion) you gave him a couple of areas which by definition is a 6.5.

I'd say, ignore the mark and bear in mind the development areas ... and keep smiling!
Click to expand...
Performance Criteria
1 – 10
Weighting
Sub total
Offside judgement & interpretation
7
x 4
28
Support the referee
7
x 4
28
Technical performance
7.5
x 2
15


Total
71​
 
Agree with @Russell Jones . I doubt appealing would help. It could have been harsh but cop it on the chin and use it as motivation to get better.

I am hoping the report has other positives in it even though it missed the mass con. Unfortunate the two negatives you mentioned, although as you say petty, they are considered basics techniques and a (say) 75+ AR is expected to get all the basics spot on.
 
Hang on hang on, I’ve been encouraged by observers in the past to do the walk the dog on tight call to aid the referee and marked down for not doing it! Why is there no consistency?
 
I assume walk the dog is holding the flag down and visible when setting off?

I get that it isn't in the LOTG but it seems everyone and their dog knows what it means, so it's useful if in a tight offside call when people are looking across to appeal?

I guess, if those two issues are the only negatives in the report, then just chin up and crack on? If you do want to offload, you might be able to chat to your RDO about it if he's happy to do so, preferably an informal chat to get the gist of things and not a chat to rant about it.
 
I also pass comment on "walking the dog" and indeed last week.
Its simple, flag up, offside. No flag up, not offside.
Why complicate it?

Use of the flag is clearly pictured in the lotg and I be more inclined to show a practical deminstration if required. Sometimes the AR does not know what his flag looks like to other people.
A good sesh in front of a mirror will help.

An observer clearly thinking you need a bit of a refresher on the basics

Of course you would expect credit, if it was due, for helping at the mass con.

On the plus side, now its been pointed out to you,your flagging should now be better and you wont be marked down for it again,
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Not walk the dog: you run towards goal line with flag in your left hand next to your left leg with natural running back and forth arm motion
Walk the dog: you run towards goal line with flag in your left hand next to your left leg with the arm on a 45 degree angle. The arm is not moving back an forth as it naturally would when running

Some old school assessors or some grassroots ones still encourage it. The argument against it is that the additional 'help' to referee is in fact helping the attacking team. It is often used in close calls and it's a signal to the attacking player (who is chasing the ball but has not interfered yet) that he is free to challenge for the ball giving him the all clear. If he knows you are using this signal, next time you follow the ball without "walking the dog", he knows you are waiting for him to interfere before flagging so he can pull out of the chase without committing the offence.

The fact that you are running with the flag and not signalling it should be help enough to the referee that no offence has been committed at the time he has looked at you. A second look is required by the referee if interference by attacking player happens later.
 
Last edited:
Effectively yeah, I just stick the flag down lower whilst i start my sprint so that if anyone does look over they know to carry on.
 
I was always told to try and keep the flag still whilst running down the line, whether just following play or as a tight non-offside develops. This is not quite walking the dog imo but I do it to keep the flag under control. Having it flap about as you run with your arm movement could lead to people/refs thinking you're about to raise it.

Without wishing to send this down an alternative road, assessors (sorry observers) all have their own quirks, likes and dislikes, just like we all do when we ref. You'll get the same or similar incidents marked differently all the time, just part of the game I'm afraid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JH
There seems to be a lot of debate and strong feelings about "not OS" signals--and a lot of local variation. Many folks I work with like the non flag forward as a no-one off signal. Those who like it feel that the evolving interpretations of OS that mean OS gets flagged later than it used to helps them as R to know if they need to look back again or not. Shrug. Hardly seems a big issue for an assessor to get would up about--in my view the AR should be doing what the R wants as to whether or not to give the un-official signal.

As to the finger on the flag, that is very good advice--I've worked with a number of ARs who did not do it and were totally unaware that their flag was consistently pointing back over their shoulder rather than up as it should be. Whether it warrants being in a write-up is a separate question.
 
The full report (admittedly i'm hungover today so probably more irritable than normal...!!) -
33431a007c17963c9c78f3b085336ec4.png

8ba49758d74dfb7aa020b7d6823972a9.png


Will be taking the finger on the flag point on board, and the 'walking the dog' though it's not much different to how i like to run with the flag anyway.
 
So tidy up flagging and refrain from unathorised signals and you have a very good report!!


edit, I never deducted for the walking the dog but advised its not common practise or to be encouraged... what the AR chooses to do with that advice this weekend in front of maybe a more influential assessor is up to him, least he cant say nobody told him...
 
Last edited:
I think it is harsh to make the walking the dog bit major rather than minor development. In doing so he has meant that you can't get above 7 in offside, whereas if that was minor advice it would be 8 taking the mark up to 75. Especially as he said that all of your offsides were correct and you didn't miss any. Also I think it is in the wrong section, walking the dog isn't a signal for an offside offence so it could be argued it shouldn't be in there. Rather it could go to "Clear signals in accordance with the laws …" in section 3 and that would only bring the mark down by 1 to 74.

I'm also surprised the observer hasn't been pulled up on his reports as there are no positive impact statements on any of the strengths. Don't really think it is worth appealing though, and there's a chance the mark could come down as a strength without a PI statement technically would be removed and that would drop you to 70.
 
Not worth an appeal but perhaps worth enquiring as to what the FAs stance on it is. I’ve seen reports where it’s been noted as a positive.

Certainly still see walking the dog at the top level and on the national league

The back and forth hand motion to signal a player has come back from an offside positon seems to be in vogue with the Fa and that’s also a non recognised signal under the laws of the game.
 
bester said:
Not worth an appeal but perhaps worth enquiring as to what the FAs stance on it is. I’ve seen reports where it’s been noted as a positive.

Certainly still see walking the dog at the top level and on the national league

The back and forth hand motion to signal a player has come back from an offside positon seems to be in vogue with the Fa and that’s also a non recognised signal under the laws of the game.
Click to expand...



the back and forth signal is actually mentioned in the LOTG.........

I personally don't think its needed but clearly some folk do!!
 
At @MattTheRef - what level was the match?

If Supply League, then there is no appeal process I am aware of.

As others have said, walking the dog was the fashion 12-15 years ago probably when the observer was refereeing, so he likes it. The more important point is to be clear that you have decide that there is no offside.
,
 
The Laws provide:

Gestures

As a general rule, the AR should not use obvious hand signals. However, in some instances, a discreet hand signal may assist the referee. The hand signal should have a clear meaning which should have been agreed in the pre-match discussion.
Click to expand...

If covered in pregame, this could support the over-back signal--but could also support a not-off signal.
 
Surprised to hear that some observers are still promoting the walk the dog signal. It has been a while since that has stopped being taught and discouraged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top