That would be great. As far as I can tell CFAs have actually had their budgets cut recently, something I find quite surprising given the increase in money flowing into the professional game.
Why tolerate it?
- Thread starter DB
- Start date
That would be great. As far as I can tell CFAs have actually had their budgets cut recently, something I find quite surprising given the increase in money flowing into the professional game.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Clubs can't even manage to produce one honest and fair mark.....sod asking them to try and understand 6 areas......
@Padfoot - I understand where you're coming from. However, in my industry, when estimating the size of a project, you can roughly ballpark it. Break it down in to smaller component parts, and the accuracy of the estimate improves - rather than estimating the size of the overall project, you are estimating the size of each of the jobs involved.
The same could be applied here - rather than scoring the overall performance of the referee out of 100, break it down in to more understandable components. Totalled, these would give a better idea of the performance of the referee and would highlight where a particular performance was lacking.
Of course, a club could score every category very low - but rather than submitting written reports perhaps a refsec should be required to follow up, especially if there is a trend for a specific referee. We might then be able to nip things in the bud / better develop a referee (without a call for a strike...)
The same could be applied here - rather than scoring the overall performance of the referee out of 100, break it down in to more understandable components. Totalled, these would give a better idea of the performance of the referee and would highlight where a particular performance was lacking.
Of course, a club could score every category very low - but rather than submitting written reports perhaps a refsec should be required to follow up, especially if there is a trend for a specific referee. We might then be able to nip things in the bud / better develop a referee (without a call for a strike...)
I suspect this relies on the people making the estimates having some remote clue what they're doing. The idea that a club captain I've sent off will be able to make a meaningful assessment of my positioning is a bit far fetched. Players are not paying any attention to the referee except when they disagree with a decision.
Very true - but it should be down to the manager, not a player, to pass comment (and yes, I accept player/managers will be the exception). But then this comes down to wording of the questions. You could ask a manager to score out of 10 the referees positioning, or you could ask a manager whether they thought the referee was in the correct place to make their decisions none of the time, some of the time, most of the time, or all of the time (example only! I'm sure someone, somewhere, could come up with well thought out questions and scores).
Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
The system will never cope while the money is not there, club marks have to be relied upon and i am in agreement that they are boll***s but as a level 4 you can expect what, 5 assessments per season? They cannot promote to level 3 based on 5 assessments.
I have said for a very long time the FA could make this country the best grass roots football in the world with the best facilities, referees, coaches and therefore players. How?
As soon as you sign a professional football contract you are obliged to give 0.5% of your weekly wage to grass roots football, this is all relative and the players CAN afford to give it away. So the guy at Rochdale earning £500 a week has 0.5% of his wage taken from him, in this case £2.50, but so does Wayne Rooney at £300,000 in his case £1500.00. Even if Mr Rooney worked a 40 hour week (which we know he doesn't do anywhere near!) its only 2 hours wages and lets face it with sponsorship and endorsements he is earning more like £500,000 anyway, but we don't want that we just want 0.5% of his contracted salary.
It benefits all because lets face it if Kai Rooney is not as good as his Dad then he will need grassroots football, coaches, referees, pitches.
It will never happen in a million years but thats my idea/theory.
I have said for a very long time the FA could make this country the best grass roots football in the world with the best facilities, referees, coaches and therefore players. How?
As soon as you sign a professional football contract you are obliged to give 0.5% of your weekly wage to grass roots football, this is all relative and the players CAN afford to give it away. So the guy at Rochdale earning £500 a week has 0.5% of his wage taken from him, in this case £2.50, but so does Wayne Rooney at £300,000 in his case £1500.00. Even if Mr Rooney worked a 40 hour week (which we know he doesn't do anywhere near!) its only 2 hours wages and lets face it with sponsorship and endorsements he is earning more like £500,000 anyway, but we don't want that we just want 0.5% of his contracted salary.
It benefits all because lets face it if Kai Rooney is not as good as his Dad then he will need grassroots football, coaches, referees, pitches.
It will never happen in a million years but thats my idea/theory.
In my dark times of Sunday OA Pub Leagues i was dealing with the same Herberts every time I saw them, they don't change, once a kobn always one..... The managers (or some of them) hated me, I didn't give two hoots, to ask them to judge anything when they couldn't run a bath on or off the pitch is absolutely pizzing in the wind of a balanced opinion... I'm so glad i have never been assessed in probably 500-600 games..i've watched refs on other pitches with all the kit, all the swagger in the changing rooms and TBH i wouldn't have paid them half their fee... No idea about management of a game, no fear for the players, no recognition of the nasty stuff or the dark arts stuff at corners. Seen many a game royally messed up by a young ref not ready for grumpy fellas.... and promotion... do me a favour!!!
Far from funding to grass roots football being increased, it has been absolutely slashed over recent years resulting in several CFAs having to shed staff. Ultimately these are the people that administer and support grass roots, and there are less of them to do it.
The FA and PL would no doubt point to the funding that has gone into the regional hubs, or mini St George's Parks as they are referred to. But what percentage of grass roots players across the country actually get to use these facilities on a regular basis?
The FA and PL would no doubt point to the funding that has gone into the regional hubs, or mini St George's Parks as they are referred to. But what percentage of grass roots players across the country actually get to use these facilities on a regular basis?
We don't need an alternative at grass roots level, we have a promotion system that identifies some degree of competence in our ranks..........
But 90% of referees aren't on the promotion system and many of those never will be. Which is fine in terms of promotions as those on promotion will get observed, but ...
.. Referee's Secretaries need to have some way of knowing how well referees are performing
I'm not an big fan of club marks, but over the course of a season they do tend to reflect the referee's overall ability. If a referee is consistently averaging 80+, even getting those kind of marks from teams who lost or had discipline issues, then you have a reasonably good idea he knows what he is going. Likewise if a referee is getting 60 or lower and written reports every week, even from teams who won and had no discipline issues, then you have a fair indication there is something wrong. A good RefsSec won't just look at the marks in isolation, but rather will look at the result of the game, any misconduct, and how that club normally marks, and he will also speak to clubs who don't mark properly. I once had a club who gave 100 for every game, so I asked them to start doing it properly. Conversely I had a team who always gave 90 if they won and 65 if they lost or drew, so I confronted them with this evidence and asked them to do it correctly. When they refused it was pointed out in no uncertain terms that they would be getting the lowest marked referee's week in week out until they did start marking properly, and the penny eventually dropped.
There's also an argument to say that the clubs are the customers. They elect the league management committee, including the RefsSec, so expect them to do a good job, and they pay the referee a fee for their services. If you use an agency to hire a cleaner and she (or he) turns out to be hopeless you are going to complain to the agency (read league) about the cleaner (read referee), and if asked or required to give the cleaner a rating it won't be very high. Is refereeing really that much different?
If the club marks were being awarded by a dispassionate club official who is not involved in the team then I might agree with this analogy. But in my league it's nearly always the captain that awards the mark and it would be a very unusual player who awards a referee high marks despite having been red carded by that referee, or had a penalty awarded against him because the ref spotted him pulling a shirt.
Personally I could't give two hoots about my club marks, I'm not looking for promotion or a career in refereeing and I agree with your point that over a season better refs probably get better marks on average. But when a skipper approaches a referee after a game and asks him whether he's going to report the two yellows, one of which was issued to him, the referee knows that doing the right thing is going to cost him marks.
O
Yes Rusty, you've said all this before and I do understand your point of view. However, unless all clubs make an effort, the system is simply flawed. The marks have to be a reasonable reflection of performance, if not bin the lot.
Yes Rusty, you've said all this before and I do understand your point of view. However, unless all clubs make an effort, the system is simply flawed. The marks have to be a reasonable reflection of performance, if not bin the lot.
I know I sound like a stuck record here, but generally clubs are OK with club marks. What they might tell you they are going to mark you after the game isn't necessarily what they will mark once the red mist has gone away and they have calmed down a bit.
The fact remains though no one in England has yet to come up with a workable alternative. Observers, or assessors as they were known, are already at a shortage in terms of covering promotion candidates, and funding is being cut rather than increased. As people might say in the work environment, don't give me a problem unless you can also give me a solution that will work, so what really is the option here?
The fact remains though no one in England has yet to come up with a workable alternative. Observers, or assessors as they were known, are already at a shortage in terms of covering promotion candidates, and funding is being cut rather than increased. As people might say in the work environment, don't give me a problem unless you can also give me a solution that will work, so what really is the option here?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
I agree with every criticism of club marks on here. In Australia, we'd typically get every refereed assessed twice a year.
Of course, even that has a problem - get an incompetent assessor who doesn't know the laws for one match, or otherwise gets it completely wrong, and your season is stuffed.
Having said that, I don't think club marks are to blame for referees promoting a culture of abuse. In Australia we have the same thing - in the national A League players can basically say whatever they want and on rare occasions they may get a yellow card (and this is so rare that it's completely random and inconsistent). Reds are non-existent.
So you see this increasingly as you get to higher and higher levels.
IMO it's because off all the garbage like 'players are emotional' and 'it shouldn't be about the referee' and 'referee shouldn't be noticed' and all this crap which is utter ********, but it's a script we subscribe to and perpetuate, and spectators like to requote those clichés and nobody has actually stopped to think how stupid they all are.
But yeah, that's why abuse gets worse at higher levels. IMO club marks isn't the problem.
And because this game has such a toxic culture, even at lower levels, stamp down on abuse and sometimes you make it worse, as we all know. so it gets worse at lower levels too.
Of course, even that has a problem - get an incompetent assessor who doesn't know the laws for one match, or otherwise gets it completely wrong, and your season is stuffed.
Having said that, I don't think club marks are to blame for referees promoting a culture of abuse. In Australia we have the same thing - in the national A League players can basically say whatever they want and on rare occasions they may get a yellow card (and this is so rare that it's completely random and inconsistent). Reds are non-existent.
So you see this increasingly as you get to higher and higher levels.
IMO it's because off all the garbage like 'players are emotional' and 'it shouldn't be about the referee' and 'referee shouldn't be noticed' and all this crap which is utter ********, but it's a script we subscribe to and perpetuate, and spectators like to requote those clichés and nobody has actually stopped to think how stupid they all are.
But yeah, that's why abuse gets worse at higher levels. IMO club marks isn't the problem.
And because this game has such a toxic culture, even at lower levels, stamp down on abuse and sometimes you make it worse, as we all know. so it gets worse at lower levels too.
Back to the original question.
For me, my approach is to distinguish between frustration and things that are directed deliberately at me or the assistants. Frustration is usually a "fu**ing hell ref". Something deliberately directed at you is usually given away by a sentence that includes "you". Also take into account how loud they are, how long it goes on for, and whether they've already been warned - in that case, "frustration" would merit action as well. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but I try not to hesistate when someone does cross the line.
As for why... Because football is an emotional game played by passionate people, and those who would sanitise the game will kill it. I used to get frustrated with referees when I played, so I know what it's like, and I try to empathise. Whenever dissent is in the news, there's always some pious numpty that pops up with a comparison to rugby. Frankly, they can keep it - rugby is boring, slow and the players aren't exactly known for virtuous behaviour in the bar afterwards...
I might not be right... I'm not exactly storming through the ranks, but my marks for application of law and match control have always been fine.
For me, my approach is to distinguish between frustration and things that are directed deliberately at me or the assistants. Frustration is usually a "fu**ing hell ref". Something deliberately directed at you is usually given away by a sentence that includes "you". Also take into account how loud they are, how long it goes on for, and whether they've already been warned - in that case, "frustration" would merit action as well. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but I try not to hesistate when someone does cross the line.
As for why... Because football is an emotional game played by passionate people, and those who would sanitise the game will kill it. I used to get frustrated with referees when I played, so I know what it's like, and I try to empathise. Whenever dissent is in the news, there's always some pious numpty that pops up with a comparison to rugby. Frankly, they can keep it - rugby is boring, slow and the players aren't exactly known for virtuous behaviour in the bar afterwards...
I might not be right... I'm not exactly storming through the ranks, but my marks for application of law and match control have always been fine.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
So...because you abused referees when you became "frustrated" it's ok for them to do the same to you? Or your colleagues?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
That's the excuse often used, and it's just absolute nonsense. Every sport is passionate - no sport promotes as much referee abuse as this one. You can't play an aggressive sport without remaining in a heightened state of aggression and emotional intensity. Football isn't unique in that regard.
It's the current culture of stopping the game for 2 minutes so everybody can crowd around the referee, abuse and push him around that's killing the game. Forcing players to act like the so-called adults they are and actually get on with things and not try to force the referee to be biased through intimidation would be the best thing that can happen to the game.
I know you're exaggerating for effect, but if people are being surrounded with any regularity (probably more than once a game) they really are doing something wrong. I've certainly never been pushed, and as soon as someone put their hands on me they'd be off.
No, plainly not. The laws allow us to sanction dissent and offensive, insulting and abusive language. All I'm suggesting is that we can distinguish between those things, which merit cards, and frustration, which is inherent in the game. (I never got booked by the way so many 100s of refs also didn't see it as abuse).
No one needs to tolerate genuine abuse, dissent, or offinabus. However, it's not realistic to expect our decisions never to be questioned - often forcefully - so if someone isn't capable of accepting that and of coming with ways to control players then they shouldn't pick up a whistle.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
No problem with a decision being questioned....providing it is done in the right way......"forcefully" will normally result in a caution....because "forcefully" normally involves a degree of attempted intimidation towards the referee in the forlorn hope that they will change their mind.
Your cards are a way to control players......don't be scared of using them.
Far too much is dismissed as "frustration" by referees who are too weak, too lazy or too indoctrinated to correctly identify it as dissent or OFFINABUS and actually do something about it.
Generally, ex players are some of the worst culprits.....because they did it themselves, therefore they mistakenly believe that it is acceptable and will find any excuse to call it "frustration" rather than just dealing with it properly.