A&H

Final Observation

zarathustra

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
Well, the end is in sight.

I have my third and final observation for promotion from 7 - 6 tomorrow afternoon.

Fingers crossed it goes ok, then I just need to get my final 7 games in and hope I get the required average club marks.

Unfortunately due to injury, and a long run of ar appointments last season I don't have a huge number of middles under my belt, so my average will be more susceptible to a rogue bad mark hammering my average.
 
The Referee Store
Don't start your day thinking like that..concentrate on your game..focus on the pints other assessors have pointed out and relax and enjoy the game. If you are thinking about the mark etc and what the assessor is thinking then you aren't focussing on the game. Not sure how the assessors work in England etc over here they introduce themselves beforehand and you can have a chat etc...promotion is only a bonus f you enjoy doing the job. Relax, be confident, put in that extra 5 yard dash to get into position and good luck.
 
Cheers, I'm not worried about club marks, I'll just do what I do for every game and give it 100%.

In my job we get bonuses based on maintainingredients a percentage of good feed back from clients, and I know that the lower number of feed backs provided means that one abnormally low feed back has a bigger impact on your average.

If I don't get promoted for whatever reason then I'll just go for it again.
 
Club marks are only important if your candidacy is borderline. Good assessments will always outweigh them. Timely and accurate paperwork and acknowledgement of appointments will also count. Annoying fixture secretaries can also impact outcomes.

you will be fine and make sure you put in for your 5 straight away.
 
What sort of system do you have over there? Club marks? Seriously? Over here if you did that it would be 10 from the winning side and 1/0 from the losing side!
 
A Freethinker said:
What sort of system do you have over there? Club marks? Seriously? Over here if you did that it would be 10 from the winning side and 1/0 from the losing side!
Click to expand...

The clubs tend to be fair in their marking. The poor markers are consistent with all referees, so one of of 20 matches does not affect you that much. It is done by banding, so you have to be in the top 50% for county promotions. at higher leagues, it is different ratios - but those clubs are the Semi-professional clubs and know that the marking can be important.

Marking less than 60 (out of 100) without a report get the club a fine, which tends to focus the Secretaries mind.:smoke:
 
Hmm sounds interesting...here you general join a development group and will be assessed three/four times before moving up. You are also allocated a mentor to help you with progressive (senior referee with experience), when you have had you assessments etc..referee's committee will decide which way to push you further in the middle or AR. If you want to ref but they think you would be better in the middle then you will probably not get promoted much higher.

As a mentor, you get to know refs and see them progress which is good, so far from last year and this I have had 3 promotions to middle and two to AR so doing something right?
 
Paul March said:
Club marks are only important if your candidacy is borderline. Good assessments will always outweigh them. Timely and accurate paperwork and acknowledgement of appointments will also count. Annoying fixture secretaries can also impact outcomes.

you will be fine and make sure you put in for your 5 straight away.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm going to go for my 5 next season.

Need to be in it to win it, and I'm not getting any younger.
 
The other thing you gain by applying for promotion is better games. It wasn't until I put in for my 5 last season that I started getting step 6 middles and step 5 lines. I am pushing for my 4 and hey presto I now get step 5 middles and lines.

Good luck
 
Well it's done and dusted.

Debrief after the match was ok, Observer said I missed a caution for a cynical foul, but aside from he was happy I met the standard for the competencies.

He was happy I used the stepped approach with a player that had committed 3 careless tackles in the space of 20 minutes, got the captain in and had a word and the player didn't put a foot wrong for the rest of the match.

A couple of small things were picked up, like being more communicative when turning down appeals etc.

He said I got the standard expected, so that makes 3 and I'm happy enough. he did say he thought both teams would probably go home thinking I was the best ref they'd had all season, but I'm not so sure about that.

All that's left is to get the rest of my games in.
 
I awarded a free kick, he said the player was yanked back, I wasn't that far from play, so I assume my position let me down
 
So what did you see that made you award the FK?

What made the observer think that a caution was required? Did it break up a promising attack?
 
I saw the two players shoulder to shoulder, but one was pushed/held back.

Observer said it was a "yank" back, he was moving around the pitch during the game so he must have seen something more in it than I did.

I didn't think there was a promising attack in the offing, and I don't think he was fouled to prevent him getting the ball or anything like that.

But, the Observer said I missed a caution so I must have
 
I've had observers describe "mandatory cautions" while internally having total confidence that the reason the foul was given was not a mandatory caution.

If you're wrong in law, then I have no problem with an observer telling you so. But what it sounds like here is a difference in opinion between you and him on if a foul was of a cynical nature or not - and I think it's part of the responsibility of being an observer to separate "mistakes in law" from "I have a different opinion of this incident".

Even if he thinks you got the decision wrong because you were in a poor position, then that's the feedback he should be giving. Trying to imply that you were wrong in law in the situation you described is a much more serious critique than some minor tips on positioning and he should be careful to distinguish the two when giving feedback.

It sounds like you still don't think it should have been a caution from what you saw?
 
If I am observing a referee and I see a challenge that is reckless, but the referee doesn't recognise it as reckless is that simply a "matter of opinion" or is there a more fundamental problem there?
 
Aren't most challenges that either are a caution, are not a caution or those on that are on the verge, a "matter of opinion"? If it's a cautionable offence BUT it can be managed... manage it. You often see players who have put a rubbish challenge in on the stroke of 80 minutes... The player has had a good game, been no trouble at all but puts in a poor challenge last thing... just manage it using your experience and tact. Skill level is a massive part for me. After all, there are only a few mandatory cautions, the rest are down to opinion.
 
If its a reckless challenge, its a caution.....whether its the first minute or the last. Or have they changed the LOTG when i wasn't looking?
 
GraemeS said:
I've had observers describe "mandatory cautions" while internally having total confidence that the reason the foul was given was not a mandatory caution.

If you're wrong in law, then I have no problem with an observer telling you so. But what it sounds like here is a difference in opinion between you and him on if a foul was of a cynical nature or not - and I think it's part of the responsibility of being an observer to separate "mistakes in law" from "I have a different opinion of this incident".

Even if he thinks you got the decision wrong because you were in a poor position, then that's the feedback he should be giving. Trying to imply that you were wrong in law in the situation you described is a much more serious critique than some minor tips on positioning and he should be careful to distinguish the two when giving feedback.

It sounds like you still don't think it should have been a caution from what you saw?
Click to expand...

From where I was I didn't think it was a cynical foul, and it certainly wasn't a reckless foul.

He was moving around the pitch during the match, which hasn't happened in any of my other observations/assessments, so I do think that from where he was he saw something that I didn't, which is fair enough.

Padfoot said:
If I am observing a referee and I see a challenge that is reckless, but the referee doesn't recognise it as reckless is that simply a "matter of opinion" or is there a more fundamental problem there?
Click to expand...

I guess it depends, if it's an "obvious" reckless challenge then the referee is wrong, but, if it's one of those challenges where it's on the verge between careless and reckless then I think it is opened up to being a difference in opinion, but may indicate further training for the referee to improve their ability to recognise when a foul moves from careless to reckless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top