The Ref Stop

Guess the final mark

What is the mark

  • Below standard

    Votes: 9 36.0%
  • Standard

    Votes: 15 60.0%
  • Above standard

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Stuart McKenzie

referee on tour in the summer
Your pre match preparation of this game was mixed, your boots were dirty and had not been cleaned since your last game, your checking of the players boots and jewelry was haphazard to say the least, it was just going through the motions with players milling about, try getting them to line up then walk along the front checking for rings earrings and neck chains, then walk along the rear of the line checking the studs. You missed the blue team goalkeeper who was wearing yellow socks, with black tape, the same colour socks as the yellow team. There was confusion whenyou asked a yellow player to change the tape on his socks he thought you meant change his socks to black the same as his tape, that caused confusion in the second half of the game. I did not witness you doing a warm up before the game, but credit to you for making sure that the balls were of the correct pressure with you doing the inflating.
Application of Law. This game was played in a good spirit, an even game fast with attacks from both sides. Your general recognition of foul play was consistant, the foul count in this game was low, in the 1st half yellow team were penalised just twice in 38th and 41st minutes, blue team were the main offenders committing 9 penalised foul challenges. The main culprit being the No 7 who commited foul challenges in the 4th , 11th and 28th minutes, you did give a public admonishment to him warning him about his challenges, the half finished with blue team leading by 1 goal to nil. The second half continued in the same way, still fast and intense but with fewer foul challenges being committed, 3 by yellow team and 2 by blue team, the No 7 committed his 4th foul challenge in the 68th minute no misconduct action taken, a caution for persistent misconduct ought to have been administered, a minute later you cautioned the yellow No 2 for dissent, he had been no trouble to you throughout the game a verbal warning would have been sufficient you were not consistent in your decisions. Towards the end of the match when blue team were under pressure in their own penalty area there was a lot of foul language being shouted out loud, mainly by the blue No 7. you chose to ignore it and he escaped any sanction once again. To your credit you picked up a foul throw, all substitutions were carried out on the half way line and you restarted play correctly when you stopped play after a dog started chasing the ball with a correctly administered drop ball.
Match Control. You appeared confident throughout the game and you used the stepped approach when dealing with misconduct using the captains on two occasions, spoke to yellow No 23 with the captain in attendance, no further action was needed, spoke to blue No 9 with captain in attendance, no further action was needed, you gave the blue No 7 a public admonishment, but no further act was taken when it was needed. I heard you talking to players throughout explaining decisions or non decisions, giving time remaining when asked. You seemed to be a little bemused when the blue No 5 went down with an injury in the 60th minute, a substitution was asked for, it was then you realised the yellow player had the black socks on instead of yellow, play was halted for 5 minutes not due to the injury but with you trying to sort the situation out. Positioning and Movement. You had a good understanding of the diagonal path of control, being flexible when needed to get closer to the play, the one positioning point is that when the goalkeeper has ball in hand and is going to clear the ball upfield, when you run to position you ended up with your back towards the active assistant, this did not occur when the goalkeeper took a goal kick. At ceremonial free kick situations you made sure the defensive wall was back the required distance, then took up your position before play was restarted. Fitness. This was an evenly matched game played at a fast pace play going from one end of the field to the other in equal measures, there were very few times when you could have had a rest, you coped very well with just a small measure of tiredness creeping into your game in the last 10 minutes. Management. Your arm directional signals were well made out straight parallel to the ground, your whistle could be heard around the field of play although you did not have to vary the tone during the game, in the 10th minute the yellow assistant indicated a direction to which you disagreed, there was no communication between you both, to keep the assistant on your side you need to consult him and then explain your decision.
Alertness and Awareness. There were not many opportunities to apply the advantage clause during this game, but one played in the 38th minute to blue didn't accrue and you brought the play back, you were quickly aware of the one injury situation and the dog on the field of play dealing with them both.

Application of law below standard
Match control standard
Positioning standard
Fitness above standard
Management standard
Alertness and awareness standard

Ps I have already had two assessments below standard so all opinions appreciated
 
The Ref Stop
I have gone with standard as most of the marking criterias are standard.
 
The main culprit being the No 7 who commited foul challenges in the 4th , 11th and 28th minutes, you did give a public admonishment to him warning him about his challenges, the half finished with blue team leading by 1 goal to nil. [...] the No 7 committed his 4th foul challenge in the 68th minute no misconduct action taken, a caution for persistent misconduct ought to have been administered
I don't see that as persistent infringement.

There's a big gap between fouls 2 and 3, and a huge gap to foul 4. What we're taught here is that persistent infringement is fouls grouped together. For example, the 4th and 11th minute fouls are grouped... and if one happened in the 16th? PI for sure.

At a certain point, if "4 fouls" by a player in the game is considered persistent infringement, then we should be doling out 5-8 extra cautions per game by that logic.
 
The report also mentions blue 7 and his language- the two are linked. Earlier action would almost certainly have led to the players attitude being different. The observer mentioned it to.

The time between offences is irrelevant. Indeed it doesn't even have to be the same player.
 
I've gone for standard.

The comments about your boots and pre-match shouldn't technically affect the score at 7-6 (but probably will subconciously), although may have lost you marks at a higher level. I agree with the other commenter that the description of "persistent" given definitely falls under referee's discretion, but the observer clearly thinks he should have seen yellow, so that might have cost you. I also strongly disagree with the observer suggesting you should have gone over and explained your decision to the assistant - it's your call to make and his job to advise and that's the case right up to the PL. Wasting time walking over and chatting about an irrelevant throw-in would be stupid.

But everything else seems good (if not exactly glowing), so I'd expect an overall standard mark.
 
The time between offences is irrelevant. Indeed it doesn't even have to be the same player.

I must have misunderstood this because it sounds like you're saying that a caution for persistent infringement can be issued even if the infringements in question are not all made by the same player.
 
I'd be fascinated to learn how this observation is relevant to your refereeing.

I do appreciate what he is saying here. As it was at a pretty scummy park pitch I thought he wouldn't notice. Unfortunately one of the managers pointed it out
 
I was actually scored as below standard the not booking of no 7 as you addressed cost me
That seems harsh to me. Maybe it could give you a below average in application of law, but that alone shouldn't have resulted in an overall below standard IMO, especially given it's something relatively discretionary. Did he give you an opportunity to defend the decision in the after-match debrief?
 
The report also mentions blue 7 and his language- the two are linked. Earlier action would almost certainly have led to the players attitude being different. The observer mentioned it to.

The time between offences is irrelevant. Indeed it doesn't even have to be the same player.

The language was aimed in frustration at his team mate for not picking up a runner. However the ball was in play as the opposition had the ball
 
That seems harsh to me. Maybe it could give you a below average in application of law, but that alone shouldn't have resulted in an overall below standard IMO, especially given it's something relatively discretionary. Did he give you an opportunity to defend the decision in the after-match debrief?

Well I said that the fouls where innocuous and felt the spirit of the game didn't dictate it. I felt on reflection the yellow card for decent was harsh and probably could of got away with no yellows
 
I also strongly disagree with the observer suggesting you should have gone over and explained your decision to the assistant - it's your call to make and his job to advise and that's the case right up to the PL. Wasting time walking over and chatting about an irrelevant throw-in would be stupid

Well he didn't mention this in the debrief, if he had I would of said I did actually shout out to all the players it took a nick off an attacker. The defender took a quick throw so I didn't have time to cimmunicate this with assistant as he was in the other half of the pitch. Ps I said in the pre match as it was a club assistant to leave any throw ins nearer to me as it was more credible for me to give it. He missed my pre match to my assistants
 
Appeal it. With the new tick box forms there is no weighting of competencies. You got standard expected in 4 out of 6 categories, above standard in 1, and below standard in just 1, therefore the only possible allowed overall grade is standard expected.

You cannot say that someone is standard or above expected in 83% of competencies but the say they are below standard overall.
 
I must have misunderstood this because it sounds like you're saying that a caution for persistent infringement can be issued even if the infringements in question are not all made by the same player.
That's exactly what he is saying. If the referee determines that one team is persistently infringing for tactical purposes (eg to repeatedly slow down the game and reduce the chance of counter attacks or to 'leave a mark' on the opposition playmaker) then he is within his rights to issue a PI caution to the next player involved. Normally this would happen after warning the relevant captain that his team was on thin ice ...
 
The thing to take away from this is there is plenty of room for improvement. Having clean boots is a big thing for me personally. Set the tone before you even step on the pitch. I always have baby wipes and boot polish in my bag which I use before the game. Set a good first impression as you dont get a second chance.

Other than that, if your other assessments are all classed as being below standard, you will need to start applying their recommendations to your game. Get a mentor to come and watch you to offer advice. Work with and watch other referees when you can.
 
Are you running lines for the leagues above? If not get yourself in touch with your RDO and get them to put you forward. Working with other refs will only improve your game. As DB suggests get a mentor.
 
I'll admit that reading through the narrative without looking at the scores for competencies I'd have said below standard.

But as all bar one competency were either at or above the standard expected I fail to see how the over all score could be below the standard. But, I'm not an observer.

As others have said, see if you can get a mentor to come to your games, and try to apply the recommendations.
 
Back
Top