A&H

First assessment 6-5

Dave87

Active Member
i thought I was average and that my fitness wasn't where it needed to be.

first of all I would like to congratulate you on a very impressive and polished performance. Your performance overall was consistent and you are clearly a competent referee for your level.


Your application of law was consistent throughout the 90 minutes. You applied the laws of the game correctly at all times. This was shown with your ability to distinguish between fair, careless and reckless tackles. This was demonstrated on the 42nd minute when you issued the home no.7 for a foul tackle and on the 91stminute when in issued another caution for a foul tackle for the away no.4. I was impressed that on both occasions you played advantages which resulted in chances on goal and then when the ball next went out of play you then issued the cautions. The only other caution in the game was issued to the away no.7 for dissent. It was encouraging to see that you initially had a word with the player about his protests to your decisions and then when he crossed the line again you issued the caution, an appropriate use of the stepped approach which I believe shown the players that you were happy to talk to the players but also fully in control. A piece of advice I want to give you which could polish your performance is to make sure when you issue a caution, just make sure you isolate the player who you are giving a caution to, when you issued the caution for the home 7 there were two other players around which could confuse people. A piece of advice I would like to offer would be that on an occasion I noticed that you went to blow your whistle to award a foul but didn’t as the challenge was borderline, just to protect you from protests, try to either not move your arm with the whistle or if you are instinctively going to blow for a foul, do not over think and blow the whistle, however I do appreciate that on this occasion the play was around the half way line and you wasn’t challenged, I would like you to take this advice in situations closer to the penalty areas.


Your match control was established throughout and when a player over stepped your tolerance level you issued a caution as I previously said, after you issued the caution you was challenged very rarely which was a credit to your performance. You looked confident when giving decisions and you showed a number of different techniques when giving decisions such as your whistle tone, arm gestures and talking to the players. You showed a proactive nature to your assistant referee’s, first of all you briefed both assistants together with the captains present and when assistants were changed for substitution you then briefed the new assistants which can only assist your match control. On a few occasions the assistant raised their flag for an offside and you gave them a thumbs up as the ball ran through to the keeper, on these occasions your assistants knew exactly what you was doing and the regained the correct position.


Your fitness and positioning was a contributing factor towards your credibility. You were never caught out of position and you consistently adopted good angles in play. It was good to see that during set pieces you would take up a good position with all of the players in view and then you would move with the ball to ensure you was in a good position.


Your management of the game was established early in the game and you carried it throughout. The game ended 7-0 and these sort of score lines can leave players frustrated and angry, but your proactive nature and overall control ensured that the game was kept very much in your control. It was good to see you being proactive when goals were scored you would make sure you was in areas that would ensure you had a good view of players if any incident could potentially occur from celebrations. Your alert and awareness was of a high standard throughout which was shown on a number of occasions where you played advantages which to your credit advantages in both teams attacking half resulted in either good chances on goal or goals being scored. You only played advantages in the defensive half if it was for an offside and the goal keeper was clearly going to gain possession without any threat from the opposition.

Performance Competencies:(please tick)


Well Below Standard

Below Standard

Standard Expected

Above Standard

Well Above Standard

1

Application of Law











2

Match Control











3

Positioning & Movement











4

Fitness











5

Management











6

Alertness & Awareness











Strengths and Developments Demonstrated during the Game:

Strengths

1

Match Control –You used a stepped approach with the player who was insistent on challenging your decisions, you gave a yellow card and after that the player stopped his challenging.

2

Alertness and awareness – Your advantages not only resulted in a number of good attempts on goal/goals but also protected your own performance when judging if the opposition were likely to deny possession.

3

Match control - Your position at set pieces was very good, you would have been in good positions if an appeal for a foul was contested.


Development Points

1

Management –When issuing a caution make sure you isolate the player to make it clear who is being booked. This only happened on one occasion but something to consider.

2

Management –On one occasion I noticed you went to blow the whistle but didn’t. During this game you wasnot challenged When you progress in your career you will officiate infront of spectators who may notice and challenge you.

3




Additional Comments:

Your performance was solid and well polished. I think to your credit if someone was not to know that you are a level 6 referee they would judge you to be a level 5 referee. I am sure that after this promotion season you will go for the level 5-4 promotion and be a credible candidate. You should be pleased with your performance and continue to progress.


Performance Indicator – Overall Match Performance: (please tick)

Well Below Standard

Below Standard

Standard Expected

Above Standard

Well Above Standard









 
The Referee Store
Nothing in the report to support a "well above standard".......reads as a "Standard Expected" for me.

The comment about 5-4 is very presumptious especially as this is your first 6-5 observation.....you might have 2 shocking games next......
 
Nice one Dave.

The assessment doesn't mention if it was a "challenging" game, which is normally the buzz word to get to a higher score. Either way, nice start to the marking season, and the pessimist in me thinks you can now have 2 very average games and still be above the required mark, which is nice.
 
Hmm, whilst you obviously had a good game I'm surprised that hasn't been reviewed and moderated. Certainly in Management, as you have no strengths and two development points so there is no way a grade of well above standard can be supported in that area.

Also, one of the strengths is a bit of a nonsense ...

Match control - Your position at set pieces was very good, you would have been in good positions if an appeal for a foul was contested.

Surely this is under positioning and movement, rather than match control?

I really don't like observations like this, and if I was reviewing it for a grade that high I would want to see clear evidence that at least most of the competencies in each section had been demonstrated. For example, for well above standard in positioning and movement I'd want to see comments that suggested each of these had been met ...


· Did the Referee demonstrate an understanding of his/her diagonal path of patrol during open play?

· Did the Referee place themselves in the optimum positions for set-pieces, start and restart of play scenarios?

· Did the Referee ensure that they were in credible positions when recognising foul play?

· Did you witness the Referee demonstrate a good level of fitness and fluidity of movement throughout the game?

· Demonstrated the ability to have a flexible position to their path of patrol where situations or incidents dictated.

· Maintains good eye contact with assistant referees – always ensuring that they are within view.
.
 
How has nobody yet spoken about the horrific manner in which this assessment has been written? The language is atrocious, reminiscent of an early teenager's attempt at English homework!
Additionally, with the sole exception of the AOL, there are no 'examples' given to back-up the 'above standard' mark generated. Whilst I'm sure the assessor/observer has come to this conclusion based on what he witnessed throughout the 90 minutes (which is obviously a credit to a decent performance from yourself Dave), the written assessment simply does not mirror that.
Throughout the years, I've become more and more fed up of these types of assessments, because the only thing that ends up happening to them is moderation resulting in the mark being downgraded, therefore affecting solely the promotion candidate.
 
Couple of things. Don't pop his balloon. He's got a good report and he's pleased with it. Also I wasn't aware that 7-6 and 6-5 were moderated, it's usually just a rubber stamp for a referee who is better than someone who has just come off the course.
 
Couple of things. Don't pop his balloon. He's got a good report and he's pleased with it. Also I wasn't aware that 7-6 and 6-5 were moderated, it's usually just a rubber stamp for a referee who is better than someone who has just come off the course.

All our 7-6 & 6-5 reports are reviewed by the RDO before being sent to candidates, and are regularly sent back to obersvers with "comments" if the RDO feels that there is a discrepancy between the evidenced examples and the marks given.

Well...so I am told....never had one of mine back yet...... ;)
 
All our 7-6 & 6-5 reports are reviewed by the RDO before being sent to candidates, and are regularly sent back to obersvers with "comments" if the RDO feels that there is a discrepancy between the evidenced examples and the marks given.

Well...so I am told....never had one of mine back yet...... ;)
Me neither and they aren't exactly marks any more, are they?
 
Couple of things. Don't pop his balloon. He's got a good report and he's pleased with it. Also I wasn't aware that 7-6 and 6-5 were moderated, it's usually just a rubber stamp for a referee who is better than someone who has just come off the course.

The problem is it doesn't necessarily help the referee. Blowing smoke up someone's behind by saying they are well above standard in all competencies can lead to over confidence and the obvious problems this can bring about. It also means when they get to level 4 they start complaining that they aren't getting marks in the 90s, and as we all know that isn't going to happen.
 
The problem is it doesn't necessarily help the referee. Blowing smoke up someone's behind by saying they are well above standard in all competencies can lead to over confidence and the obvious problems this can bring about. It also means when they get to level 4 they start complaining that they aren't getting marks in the 90s, and as we all know that isn't going to happen.
I know, I know, but while there's quotas to fill...
 
Couple of things. Don't pop his balloon. He's got a good report and he's pleased with it. Also I wasn't aware that 7-6 and 6-5 were moderated, it's usually just a rubber stamp for a referee who is better than someone who has just come off the course.
Sorry, absolutely didn't mean to burst his bubble, was more my grievances with the observers!!
 
Sorry, absolutely didn't mean to burst his bubble, was more my grievances with the observers!!
I know Dan. Have to say, I've seen a few reports at Supply in the last few days and this move to all of them (Supply Observers) has worked out reasonably well based on those I've seen. Still a bit of filler in there but mainly solid timed examples with great feedback and development points.
 
Me neither and they aren't exactly marks any more, are they?

No...but used the word to simplify things.......effectively it's still a "mark" of sorts.....just not a numerical one.

And sometimes bubbles do need bursting to keep peoples feet on the ground.......As Rusty has highlighted, an overly effusive report that is lacking on actual substance, such as this one, does little favours to the candidate.
Quite possible to fill quotas without enlarging cranial circumferences........
 
Back
Top