The Ref Stop

Dissollusioned and confused by assessments?

G

Golden

New Member
Level 5 Referee
Hi all, hope you don't mind me posting a thread like this but I am more than a bit bemused by my assessments so far in this promotion season. I am going 5-4 and have had 3 assessments but the comments and marks combined with actual performances just don't seem to add up to me. I will attach my 3 assessments to this post entitled 1, 2 and 3 and I would be interested to hear what you guys (especially the assessors) think. I'm not trying to say that I am amazing flawless wonderful or anything like that - in fact I am very self critical but I just feel really quite down about these so far. One of these games I thought I had an absolute blinder of a game and couldn't really have done much more and one of the games I would agree with the assessment mark but alas I am not assessing myself :)
Please let me know your thoughts and roughly what marks you would expect.

Thanks in advance
 

Attachments

The Ref Stop
Still wish I was in a county where L5s get ARs!!
They read like 73, 69 and 70 to me.
However, a lot of assessors find reasons to bump up 70s (a perfectly acceptable mark) to 73/74 because county, quite ridiculously, set that as a minimum average score for promotion.
Either way, chin up, there's not a referee in the top flight that hasn't felt like you do and besides, you might have done enough!
Worst case scenario, another season at L5. No way will it be wasted and you'll be a better L4 as a result. I'm sure we've all seen L4 who were promoted too soon (academy mafia *cough* academy mafia) and it's painful to watch (even worse to line for)
 
Last edited:
Assessment 1 - prose seems to fit the marks, offers you some advice, particularly on positioning, but 73 seems right for the wording.

Assessment 2 - Plenty of development on positioning again and a bit more conviction on arm signals would help as well. Another excellent advantage it seems, well done. Few kit issues and it seems to imply you missed a caution for "several late challenges" by a player, but does compliment your match control once again. To me, it reads AOL 3 (maybe 3.5), MC 3.5, P/W 3, A/A 3.5, C 3.5, T 3.5, A 4, giving you 68 or maybe 70.

Assessment 3 - offers areas for improvement in AOL and wanted you a bit sharper on recognising potential trouble in MC, but is satisfied with positioning which the first two weren't as happy about. Getting people back on awarding a free kick was a concern in A/A, and don't overuse the whistle! Make sure that you don't confuse maintaining possession for advantage as well. Again no mark at the bottom but reads as 3.5 in each competency section to me, giving you 70.

To conclude, match control and advantage seem consistently good, but positioning, application of law and occasionally communication need development, which you can always work and improve upon. If my marks are correct, you're probably averaging around 71 so you could bump your average up in your final two assessments if you heed the assessor's advice. If you don't manage 73 average, another year at L5 will make you a better referee.

As you're going for level 4, at Supply level assessments I would suggest they read somewhere between 65-70. Assessment 1 would be a 70, Assessment 2 would also be around 69/70 (due to incorrect kit and a missed caution, which loses you 0.5 mark each on AOL), and Assessment 3 would also be about 68-70. Maybe that's not a fair comparison as I'm going off a county assessment report on a county game (and I'm not a Supply League assessor) but it's always good to see how you'd stack up at the next level, particularly as it could be you at Level 4 in a year or two. Maybe Brian or lincs22 would disagree with my marking.... ;)
 
Last edited:
interesting thoughts so far, will wait for a couple more and then reveal the marks. As a side issue (and I'm aware an all too common one) the reports sadly don't always paint a true picture of the game in my opinion. There are a few remarks that are made in those reports that I quite simply disagree with but I guess you have to go with what you get. One of the three games was also with 2 prem supply league teams in a cup competition i.e. if it were a league fixture it would have been a L4 in the middle.
 
And we have there 3 poorly written assessments, but you have cost yourself a few marks. Need to go out with the mind set. This is my promotion and enforce the basics and do the mandatories.

I'm not going to make a guess because what they've written some of it is total BS. If you don't get it this season, just humour the same assessors for next season. There is nothing in those 3 assessments to help you develop.

And if that one assessor has been assessing level 4 for 6 years. God help them! Quantity over Quality!
 
Agreed on that point Jacko, all of my Supply League assessments have been far more substantial. That assessor might well be when he does Level 4 assessments, who knows.
 
forest96 said:
Agreed on that point Jacko, all of my Supply League assessments have been far more substantial. That assessor might well be when he does Level 4 assessments, who knows.
Click to expand...

Really? If thats the case he's doing 5-4 candidates a disservice.

I got bored reading it and the other two. Assessments need to be to the point, cut out the waffle and BS.

This is what you did well, this is what you did sh1t, this is what you need to do to get a promotion / standard mark / next level.

Who cares if the spectators behaved well? If it caused an issue for your match control and you did well from it or poorly from it, then it should be noted.

Move to extremities? WTF.

Should he be docked a mark for the assistant fecking up the sub? Pretty harsh.

Loud on the run? If you give a FK for a careless challenge, you just give the FK. Just because you play an advantage from it, why do you need to give a loud on the run admonishment? Just jumping up the stepped approach for something that is nothing.
 
To be fair to the assessors, they do offer some sound advice on things like positioning and varying whistle tone, but they aren't written overly well.

I think by 'move to extremities' he meant closer to the corners or another way of saying 'get wider' but I could be wrong.

I've never been told to admonish on the run, I think I must have done it on occasion but I've never had it suggested, perhaps a loud word of warning but a serious admonishment should be done face-to-face at the next break in play following an advantage. If it's reckless and therefore a caution, it would have to be a really good advantage opportunity to play it at all.
 
forest96 said:
To be fair to the assessors, they do offer some sound advice on things like positioning and varying whistle tone, but they aren't written overly well.

I think by 'move to extremities' he meant closer to the corners or another way of saying 'get wider' but I could be wrong.

I've never been told to admonish on the run, I think I must have done it on occasion but I've never had it suggested, perhaps a loud word of warning but a serious admonishment should be done face-to-face at the next break in play following an advantage. If it's reckless and therefore a caution, it would have to be a really good advantage opportunity to play it at all.
Click to expand...

You're being too diplomatic for a Friday evening. ;)

You don't need to get wide, it's dated advise.

There is nothing in the 3 assessments that tell him how to get the 70's to a 73. Marking him down on positioning is only half a mark overall.
 
Haha maybe so! ;)

I think that getting wider in the context of obtaining a better angle is still valid advice, but I agree the development points are limited on the whole.

From what I can see in the assessments, you should focus on the following
  • Make sure reckless challenges/persistent infringement is punished accordingly (i.e. a caution)
  • ensure that you vary your whistle tone to signify the seriousness/nature of an offence
  • make sure your arm signals are clear, confident and decisive
  • don't be afraid to push deeper/wider with your positioning - the penalty area is not a shark-infested pit
  • avoid getting caught up in play where possible - if you find yourself constantly in the way then your positioning is clearly flawed. This can be limited by reading the game better - where is the play headed next?
  • don't confuse 'retaining possession' with 'an advantage'
  • ensure if you do play advantage, that you correctly deal with the offending player afterwards, whether it be a quiet word, public rebuke or a caution if necessary.
  • manage the technical areas more effectively - establish a clear level of tolerance and deal with anyone who steps beyond your tolerance level. Working with the benchside AR effectively will help with this, as will speaking to the managers before the game.
 
And by just getting through games thinking you did well and not doing what @forest96 has listed will mean you stay as a good level 5.

I don't agree with the wide part though. Penalty area's only for purpose. To sell something, if its they're playing thats the players area they want to be in there to shoot. Don't go in there if you have to make up silly yards in open play.

Don't see this as your season over now. You could easily as you have to make up 7 marks from two assessments so that's a 76 and 77, still achievable. If the game is dire, just sell yourself, don't fall into the lull of the game, which is easily done. Then if you don't get it this season, then when you get these same assessors next season, email them thanking them for there assessment, ask them how they are, make them feel wanted and part of your team. BS them basically, but make sure you have a good game!
 
Thanks guys this has been really interesting bearing in mind the marks I actually got.
Assessment 1: I felt harshly done by for a couple of reasons. I had really worked on my positioning and whilst I got wide I am adamant that I did penetrate the penalty area including to give one penalty and deny a goal! Also I do feel I was docked marks for the two assistants one entering fop and other for not doing subs at half way. I felt I had a really really good game. Actual Mark 73.
Assessment 2: not as good a performance as the previous assessment. I was trying to get deeper and so my patrol path was narrower and as a result got caught up in play. I did miss a couple of undershorts too but felt the feedback in person after the game especially was fair and constructive. Actual Mark 73
Assessment 3. Effectively a supply league game. I won't badmouth the assessor but let's just say it helps if they actually watch the game. I certainly should have got the cards out earlier but again I thought I had a decent game. I agree with isolating the player for cautions - I didn't on two occasions in this game and I also played advantage once when it was only really retaining possession. Actual Mark 72
I await your response on those!!!!!
 
73 on the second assessment seems generous considering the wording, take it and run!

Assessor 3 won't be the last assessor that leaves you wondering whether they watched the same game!

So your average is 72.6. A minimum of a 73 and a 74 on your last two will give you every chance providing your correspondence/availablility/number of games in the middle and AR are right. Best of luck mate.
 
Is 72/73 a poor assessment now? Bloody hell.
I can see nothing in Assessment 2 to make it a 73 (not saying you didn't deserve one, but the assessment leaves me struggling to guess where he's awarded you 4s instead of 3.5s ESPECIALLY considering his comments on the late tackles would suggest a 3.0 for me )
Same Assessment 3 but only 2 marks out.
Have to disagree with Jacko, the development points are def there.
 
I've heard assessors tell referees not to penetrate the penalty area as it narrows down your angle of view too much.
 
bester said:
I've heard assessors tell referees not to penetrate the penalty area as it narrows down your angle of view too much.
Click to expand...
Under normal play, stay out of the penalty area But when the nature of the game or action requires it, please use the penalty area to be in a more credible decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top