And this is why I want to see some kind of policy to justify Padfoot's claims that a referee who is only demonstrating operating at their current level can only below standard. That is non-sensical - every referee from time to time gets a game where absolutely nothing happens. It isn't their fault and there is nothing they can do about it. If that happens in a L4 observation the referee wouldn't be marked as below standard, they'd in likelihood get 70 or 71. So why should a 7-6 or 6-5 candidate get marked as below standard when they actually did nothing wrong during the game?
6-5 observation report
- Thread starter Tiger
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 6-5 assessment observation
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Because according to the briefing given out....below standard simply means that they have not demonstrated competency at the higher level they wish to achieve....not that they are below standard for their current level.
It makes perfect sense.
They start at their current level then it is up to them to display the higher competencies for the level they wish to reach. You cannot observe, and therefore judge, something that is not shown......so you cannot, honestly, produce a report confirming their competence for something that you haven't seen.
The alternative is that standard expected means that for their current level so to achieve promotion they need to be Above Standard......exactly the same principle just a different wording.....
Thanks everyone for the comments and lively debate. I promised to add some further details, so here goes. This was actually my final observation of the 2016-7 promotion period during which I've been attempting the 7-5 jump.
Discuss.......
- Before the game, the observer asked what feedback I had had from previous observations. The summary of my reply was 'don't use advantage in the defensive half of the pitch' and the fact that I had been picked up in the previous week's observation for briefing the CARs away from the captains just prior to the coin toss.
- My observer also said that he 'always gives standard across the board, and lets others work out the marking.' At the time, I thought I'd heard him wrong, so let the comment go. Imagine how that comment came back to my mind when I saw the report.
- When checking the players' equipment, I followed my usual routine - check one goal and then the team nearest that goal as they finish their warm-up - get them in a line and count the 11 starters, then check the other goal and then the other team - lined them up and counted only 10 starters..... the final player was still walking across from the changing rooms...so rather than wait for him to join his team mates, I applied what I thought was common sense and walked towards him and met him halfway to check his equipment.
- Given the previous week's feedback, prior to kick off I absolutely did bring the two CARs to the centre spot and briefed them in front of their captains. They even stayed for the coin toss at my suggestion so they knew which touchline to go to. I was going to make damn sure I got it right on my final observation, despite the eye-rolling from the two CARs as I made them walk all the way to the middle. I have absolutely no idea why the observer wrote what he did.
- The 'Club Assistant problem' wasn't the problem that the Observer stated - he wasn't close enough to know what the issue was. The CAR was absolutely happy to run the line, but he didn't keep his flag up on his first offside decision. I went over and explained again what I wanted and he was perfectly fine after that. I don't really understand why this is even in the report.
- Given the advice from previous observations, I have actually been counting the number of advantages I play each game. In this match I played four, and three resulted in shots on goal from promising positions. Player reaction was good on each of the occasions I played the advantage.
- For information, the five cautions in the game were for one persistent infringement, two foul tackles and two unsporting/aggressive attitude resulting from a flair up between two players on 88 minutes.
- To get 'standard expected' across all competencies doesn't appear to fit with the comments in 'Strengths' - 'Good application of law', "Good job of controlling the game' and 'demonstrated good positioning'.
- There is a real lack of evidence from the game - previous reports have stated things like 'in the 23rd minute....' or 'you penalised 13 fouls in minutes 3, 6, 28' etc. Here there is nothing.
- I was surprised to see much of the feedback was exactly what I had said to the observer about previous observations. I do appreciate that could simply be I am not improving/taking the feedback on board, but when I did absolutely brief the CARs in the middle and he says I didn't, it is simply galling. I appreciate the advantages feedback is perception, but to quote it as 'many advantages' is in my opinion simply incorrect. I wonder how different the report would have been had I simply replied that previous observations had gone really well and offered no detail!
Discuss.......
So you would be willing to say to a referee who has nothing to do in an 11-0 win that he is below the standard expected, even though you will probably give him more strengths than development areas ..?!
That just makes absolutely no sense. I've already emailed the powers that be for clarification on this - if that advice is official it is fundamentally wrong, if it isn't official then whoever made up that advice needs to be hung out to dry as they will be destroying up and coming referee's potential career paths.
But that's not what you're saying. If "standard expected" is the minimum required to advance, surely you realise that you're implying that referees should be expected to manufacture situations in order to show off if they're worried that their years work is in jeopardy due to a quiet match? And that this is exactly the opposite of what being a good referee usually is?
Is it a good thing if I blow my whistle, wade in and pull out two random players at a corner just to show off? Is it a good thing if I constantly jog in little circles at all times to show off my "above standard" fitness? Is it a good thing if I yell advantage for no good reason at a game-halting foul and then pull it back to show that I've understood that the advantage didn't come about?
And how on earth am I supposed to ensure I get "standard expected" on application of law in a game where nothing exciting happens? Randomly lecture a player on the finer points of the new DOGSO laws? List off all 7 cautionable offences before telling a player which one I'm actually booking him for? This is actual madness - a referee's job is to referee the match that is in front of them and any system that encourages otherwise is broken.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
@GraemeS , I can understand your frustration but I honestly think that you're painting too black and white a picture in your thoughts above.
Of course, you're absolutely right that referees at all levels can sometimes struggle to get a very strong assessment because the game wasn't 'difficult' enough. And this can impact overall because of the limited number of observations each season.
However, from my experience, if a referee is fully aware of the competencies he is expected to demonstrate, most games will provide a multitude of opportunities to show off many of them. Sticking with your examples above ...
1) Fitness. There are always times when that 'extra sprint' will be necessary / useful or where a forward is closing down the keeper and you can make the effort to get close just in case something unexpected happens
2) Corners. I can't remember the last time I officiated a game where there wasn't enough grappling going on at one of the corners to justify having a word with two of the players in order to stamp it out
3) Advantage. Almost all games have enough fouls to allow you to demonstrate the choice as to whether or not to play advantage
4) AOL. On this one, at 7 to 6 and 6 to 5, simply getting ALL the basics right in every game will tick plenty of competency boxes. Substitutions correct, kit check correct, cautioning choices and procedure correct, injury procedure correct, Technical Area dealings correct etc etc
And the same is true on other critical areas like Match Control as well. Is the system flawed, hell yes! Fatally so? Not in my opinion.
Of course, you're absolutely right that referees at all levels can sometimes struggle to get a very strong assessment because the game wasn't 'difficult' enough. And this can impact overall because of the limited number of observations each season.
However, from my experience, if a referee is fully aware of the competencies he is expected to demonstrate, most games will provide a multitude of opportunities to show off many of them. Sticking with your examples above ...
1) Fitness. There are always times when that 'extra sprint' will be necessary / useful or where a forward is closing down the keeper and you can make the effort to get close just in case something unexpected happens
2) Corners. I can't remember the last time I officiated a game where there wasn't enough grappling going on at one of the corners to justify having a word with two of the players in order to stamp it out
3) Advantage. Almost all games have enough fouls to allow you to demonstrate the choice as to whether or not to play advantage
4) AOL. On this one, at 7 to 6 and 6 to 5, simply getting ALL the basics right in every game will tick plenty of competency boxes. Substitutions correct, kit check correct, cautioning choices and procedure correct, injury procedure correct, Technical Area dealings correct etc etc
And the same is true on other critical areas like Match Control as well. Is the system flawed, hell yes! Fatally so? Not in my opinion.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
If the referee hasn't displayed the higher competencies required for his promotional level, then how can he be judged to be competent on them? That is the basic premise......whether you use "Standard Expected" to apply to his aspired level, or his current one, is largely irrelevant to that issue.
To clarify...."Standard Expected" either means the candidate is at the standard expected for the level they are trying to achieve, or they are the standard expected for their current level......which means that in the first instance if they don't meet the competencies required for their desired level they would be judged "Below Standard" whereas in the second instance, they would be judged "Standard Expected"......conversely if they do meet the required competencies for the higher level, for the first instance they would get a "Standard Expected" and in the second they would be "Above Standard".
As you can see, whatever way you word it, it makes no difference if they do not display those required higher competencies......unless you are advocating the idea that if they don't demonstrate competency because a situation doesn't arise to allow, we should just guess and consider them competent?
That approach might explain the ever decreasing standard of higher level referees because observers are simply guessing as to the candidates competency........
Last edited:
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
I would also suggest that candidates learn the observers "pet hates" because we all have them!
What I will say is that from my experience, in quiet matches, it is rarely just the lack of action alone that costs a referee.......there is normally something else that contributes to a lower mark, whether this is because the referee "switches off" because it's a quiet match, or is tempted to manage out something that shouldn't be because of the "temperature" of the match, or they tend to "coast" through the game without really pushing themselves....
Also, league appointment bods have a large role to play in all this.....they have a good idea of what will be quiet, what will be more challenging, and hopefully they are appointing their promotion candidates appropriately. Putting a 6-5 on a bottom of the table clash in Div 5 is rarely likely to give them an opportunity to shine.....
Paul March
Well-Known Member
The observer may have done the ref a dis service here. As padfoot has said, there are no objective points, nothing for a moderator to justify anything other than standard expected. At a recent observer seminar we were discouraged from using such a bland and subjective style.
The system should allow me to turn up, referee my natural game and if I'm good enough, gain promotion. In fact, most assessors have told me to do exactly that - "just do your normal thing and pretend I'm not here".
Doing any of the things you list above might be things I would legitimately do in a match that demanded them, but they also might be distracting things that I would damage my match control with if I attempted to unnaturally force them into a match. It just seems deeply problematic to me to start from anywhere other than "Standard Expected" as the default.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
The starting point is that you are a competent referee at your current level, it is then up to you to demonstrate that you are competent at a higher level, not for me, as an observer, to assume that and wait for you to prove or disprove that assumption.
As i've said previously, your appointments secretary should be giving you games that offer the opportunity for you to display those competencies. Obviously things don't always go to plan but the clue is in the name....observation.....we are there to report on and make a judgment about what we see, and, to an extent, what we don't see.....if we are expecting a caution and don't see one, that might be reported......but in terms of judging your competency....if we don't see evidence of it....you haven't demonstrated it so can't get credit for it.
And yet @Russell Jones suggested I should be modifying my game to make sure I display those competencies. Without wanting to get into quantum physics, surely an observation should normally not influence what is being observed?
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
I interpreted what @Russell Jones was saying as meaning that you should thoroughly learn the competencies expected and make the most of every opportunity to demonstrate them during the course of your games.
That doesn't necessarily mean that you have manufacture opportunities rather that you should use the ones that occur naturally during the game to demonstrate those higher competencies. You could argue that as the competencies purport to be the ideal standard referees should achieve, then you should be doing this in your games already when the opportunities arise.
If your "natural" game doesn't include the higher competencies already then is it a bad thing for you to modify your game so that it does?
As I mentioned earlier, my natural game doesn't involve pulling 2 people out of a corner unless I see something that needs attention. My natural game also doesn't involve shouting advantage unless I think it will actually develop. And it doesn't involve sprinting excessively just to show off.
I've done all of the above things when the situation demands it. But sometimes, you get a match where none of those things happen and things run smoothly. I disagree with the idea that if that was to happen on an observed match, the referee should be acting as if he's having a difficult game just because the observer is there.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
That's not what is being said.
You need to use every opportunity to display those higher competencies......so while you might not need to sprint, if doing so will get you 20 yds away from play as opposed to 25 yds..then put the extra effort in because it will be noticed. As I've said previously some referees tend to "coast" through easy games whereas others will work almost as hard as a more up tempo game, and it's very obvious when a referee is coasting. It won't matter hugely at 7-6, but 6-5 & definitely 5-4 it will cost you. Rightly or wrongly, but there it is.
Yampy
RefChat Addict
I'm going going L5-4 this promotion season therefore, if I understand @Padfoot correctly and my observations say "Standard expected", "Standard expected" and so on, what my observations are saying is that I am performing to the standard and competencies of a L4 referee.
If that's the case, I feel that is a good thing because in the eyes of my observers, they have confidence in me to perform at a higher level and it should give me the confidence to perform at the next level, next season.
If that's the case, I feel that is a good thing because in the eyes of my observers, they have confidence in me to perform at a higher level and it should give me the confidence to perform at the next level, next season.
Paul March
Well-Known Member
5-4 promotions don't use the same criteria. You will be marked out of 100 where 73 is seen as a decent score ( and the minimum average you will need to achieve to be considered.)
Good luck
Good luck
Yampy
RefChat Addict
Yes I know @Paul March and my post is missing a sentence.
It should start by saying :-
"I'm going going L5-4 this promotion season and the observation strategy is different but if I was to fail in my L6-5 promotion this season just gone (yet to hear from County FA) I'd be happier with this method. As a L6 "
And yes, the L4 should then read L5.
That's what you get when you try to listen to a virtual class training course and read this forum at the same time. I blame copy & paste, too. And the government.
RefJef
RefChat Addict
Personally, I blame the ref. That's what everyone else always does, right?
Interestingly when at my promotion evening earlier this week we were told that when observed you start at standard expected, which means you start as if you are competent for L6 (in my case) and then depending on what you do you will swing either towards above standard or below. The RDO advised that if you do your normal game, make no mistakes in application of law, match control etc then you will stay standard expected (essentially you have an easy game). If something happens, then depending on how you deal with it will depend if you go up or down.
So essentially we were told that you start as if you are standard expected for the level you are seeking and only you can change that if something happens and how you deal with it.
This is therefore different to what Padfoot is saying, I guess the feedback to observers obviously varies from CFA to CFA as this would be confusing information to be giving out otherwise.
So essentially we were told that you start as if you are standard expected for the level you are seeking and only you can change that if something happens and how you deal with it.
This is therefore different to what Padfoot is saying, I guess the feedback to observers obviously varies from CFA to CFA as this would be confusing information to be giving out otherwise.