The Ref Stop

Advantage law- SPA

If you only got below standard in one competency, and standard expected and above standard in the others, I'm baffled as to how the overall grade can be below standard. There's no weighting applied to the three competencies, so BS + SE + AS should be SE overall.

I’m hoping whoever processes the report notices that too, rusty!

I’m not too sure what to do at the moment. Just get on with it and see how it pans out or ask the questions you guys are asking in terms of the grade. As I’ve mentioned, what makes it all the more perplexing is the positive description of my overall game, within the report.
 
The Ref Stop
I’m hoping whoever processes the report notices that too, rusty!

I’m not too sure what to do at the moment. Just get on with it and see how it pans out or ask the questions you guys are asking in terms of the grade. As I’ve mentioned, what makes it all the more perplexing is the positive description of my overall game, within the report.

Contact your observation coordinator or RDO. There are two problems, the obvious one that the overall grade is at best harsh and in all reality just wrong, and the other is that no level 7 should be marked down for missing one caution. I suspect the observer might need a bit of support and training.
 
Contact your observation coordinator or RDO. There are two problems, the obvious one that the overall grade is at best harsh and in all reality just wrong, and the other is that no level 7 should be marked down for missing one caution. I suspect the observer might need a bit of support and training.

What do you make of him having had the same observer (at the same 7-6 promotion level) two games running Rusty? Would that be normal in your neck of the woods (or any)?? :)
 
What do you make of him having had the same observer (at the same 7-6 promotion level) two games running Rusty? Would that be normal in your neck of the woods (or any)?? :)

I missed that. Absolutely not, no one gets observed twice by the same observer in the same promotion season, which is obviously now the same as the playing season.
 
I missed that. Absolutely not, no one gets observed twice by the same observer in the same promotion season, which is obviously now the same as the playing season.

Thought so. (Just checking - thought I was seeing things myself when I read it!!). 😉👍
 
I am glad you said that rusty as I am going to be dabbling in observing soon and that was my understanding about how it should be marked. Hence the probing in it.
@Eddie as others have said, talk it through with your rdo / observer Co ordinator. Don't even do it as an appeal, just say you want to check the score is right as you don't feel it marries up to the comments /debrief.
 
I am glad you said that rusty as I am going to be dabbling in observing soon and that was my understanding about how it should be marked. Hence the probing in it.
@Eddie as others have said, talk it through with your rdo / observer Co ordinator. Don't even do it as an appeal, just say you want to check the score is right as you don't feel it marries up to the comments /debrief.

Good advice James & @RustyRef, I’ve already been in touch with the observer co-ordinator today around the amount of observations I’ll get this season, so can reply querying the score.

It’s interesting that I’m not supposed to have the same observer...I fully expect to get the same guy this weekend the way it’s going! 😂
 
I missed that. Absolutely not, no one gets observed twice by the same observer in the same promotion season, which is obviously now the same as the playing season.
Sometimes, the lack of observers in some areas necessitate the use of the same observer twice in a season, but definitely not on two weeks following.

As an observer, you were correct not to caution but I would expect you to speak with the player. On your report, @Eddie did he give you any indication as to why you were "below standard" in AOL?
 
It’s interesting that I’m not supposed to have the same observer...I fully expect to get the same guy this weekend the way it’s going! 😂

It isn't an FA rule that you can't have the same observer more than once in the same season, more best practice. I guess some counties might be short of observers and would use the argument that seeing you twice with the same observer is better than the alternative of you not getting that second observation.
 
Sometimes, the lack of observers in some areas necessitate the use of the same observer twice in a season, but definitely not on two weeks following.

As an observer, you were correct not to caution but I would expect you to speak with the player. On your report, @Eddie did he give you any indication as to why you were "below standard" in AOL?

Yeah that’s something I will admit i got wrong, 100% should’ve made a point of remonstrating the offender.

I’m happy to post the text of the report in here, unless that’s considered bad form? No names of course.
 
Sometimes, the lack of observers in some areas necessitate the use of the same observer twice in a season, but definitely not on two weeks following.

As an observer, you were correct not to caution but I would expect you to speak with the player. On your report, @Eddie did he give you any indication as to why you were "below standard" in AOL?

In general a good match for you Eddie, your positioning at set plays, corner kick and throw ins was varied but you always had a clear sight of play and you were in good positions for the 9-5 dropping zones. There were a couple of occasions when you had to avoid the ball because you were a little too close to play but that will happen when play changes direction quickly, in the 2nd half you were close enough to play to see the away keeper handle the ball outside of his area, you were also in a good position on 37 mins to award a penalty kick to Home team. Your match control was mostly good, you seemed to have a good rapport with both sets of players and when you needed to speak to them they all responded well, on occasions you noted the home ‘keeper taking a little bit too long getting the ball back in play but a few shouted word helped speed him up. On 42 mins in the first half you had cause to speak to a player from each side who had become upset with each other, your calm manner helped to control that and prevent anything developing further. You awarded 7 free kicks to Home team and 9 to Away team which included the two cautions, the first on 55 mins for the Away keeper handling the ball outside his area and the Away No4 on 65 mins for a trip, both cautions were correct in Law. In general your use of advantage allowed the game to flow, however, in the 82nd minute while you played a good advantage for an attempted trip by Away No12, the next action should have been a caution for that attempt as it was a reckless and a deliberate attempt to stop a promising attack. The attack resulted in a corner kick to Home team and also the fouled player No 8 shouting at you, if action had been taken then the No 8 would not have shouted. Overall your Application of Law was reasonable, however, not dealing with the away No12 could have given you problems. Your use of match control helped you deal with the No 8 but it could have gone wrong. All substitutions were handled well and efficiently.



Strengths

1 Application of Law:- You recognised and awarded the penalty kick on 37 mins and you correctly cautioned 2 Away team players.



2 Positioning and Movement:- Always up with play, close to the ball dropping zone and easily able to get from box to box. In position for the penalty kick and the away keeper handling the ball outside his area.



Development Points

1 Application of Law:- While advantage is a useful tool to have, you should take further action if required. For the type of challenge that occurred in the 82nd minute a caution should have been issued.



2 Match Control:- The incident in the 82nd minute could have got heated after the home No 8 had been fouled and you didn’t take any action, this led to you having to calm that player down. Dealing firmly with offending players will help your match control.
 
@Eddie - Thanks for publishing the text of the report. Upon reading, there seems only 1 development point.
Nothing in here would have lead we to mark a 7-6 candidate as Below standard.
I would say, move on; CFA's want to promote referees. Another good observation should ensure that.
 
@Eddie - Thanks for publishing the text of the report. Upon reading, there seems only 1 development point.
Nothing in here would have lead we to mark a 7-6 candidate as Below standard.
I would say, move on; CFA's want to promote referees. Another good observation should ensure that.

Below standard based on that report at 7-6 is incredibly harsh. As suggested a quick offline chat with your RDO wouldn’t be a bad idea.

The concerning thing in the report is how he mentions the SPA in the dev point, admittedly with the word reckless in there around the advantage you played.
 
Below standard based on that report at 7-6 is incredibly harsh. As suggested a quick offline chat with your RDO wouldn’t be a bad idea.

The concerning thing in the report is how he mentions the SPA in the dev point, admittedly with the word reckless in there around the advantage you played.
Yes I agree. That sentence could be misleading on what his understanding of the lotg is. The way written it sounds like he thinks it was reckless because it was SPA. And further down it asks for caution because of "the type of challenge"

The report read
"the next action should have been a caution for that attempt as it was a reckless and a deliberate attempt to stop a promising attack. "

If he thought the challenge was reckless on its own then it should have read
"the next action should have been a caution for that attempt as it was reckless inspite of being a deliberate attempt to stop a promising attack. "
 
Yes I agree. That sentence could be misleading on what his understanding of the lotg is. The way written it sounds like he thinks it was reckless because it was SPA. And further down it asks for caution because of "the type of challenge"

The report read
"the next action should have been a caution for that attempt as it was a reckless and a deliberate attempt to stop a promising attack. "

If he thought the challenge was reckless on its own then it should have read
"the next action should have been a caution for that attempt as it was reckless inspite of being a deliberate attempt to stop a promising attack. "

When I spoken to him following the report to make it clear why I didn’t caution the player, I said I didn’t see it as reckless, only SPA from the attempted trip.

He explained because there was a degree of force in the challenge he seen it as reckless. I’m not sure if he thinks there was force because the player has slid and stretched to make the trip but again, I don’t agree it was reckless.
 
Last edited:
It is very challenging critiquing a report given that we haven't seen it nor is the author available to provide comment.
My two penneth for what it is worth is for a major development on a matter of opinion I would be saying why I thought it was reckless. By just saying it was reckless doesn't actually give you any development (the whole point of observation) , because you feel it was careless. So my job as an observer would be to say when you see this type of challenge you should consider it as reckless due to x y and z and where possible some considerations around identifying reckless challenges. It's fine to have a disagreement but if you are going to write about it there should be some learning.
 
In general a good match for you Eddie, your positioning at set plays, corner kick and throw ins was varied but you always had a clear sight of play and you were in good positions for the 9-5 dropping zones. There were a couple of occasions when you had to avoid the ball because you were a little too close to play but that will happen when play changes direction quickly, in the 2nd half you were close enough to play to see the away keeper handle the ball outside of his area, you were also in a good position on 37 mins to award a penalty kick to Home team. Your match control was mostly good, you seemed to have a good rapport with both sets of players and when you needed to speak to them they all responded well, on occasions you noted the home ‘keeper taking a little bit too long getting the ball back in play but a few shouted word helped speed him up. On 42 mins in the first half you had cause to speak to a player from each side who had become upset with each other, your calm manner helped to control that and prevent anything developing further. You awarded 7 free kicks to Home team and 9 to Away team which included the two cautions, the first on 55 mins for the Away keeper handling the ball outside his area and the Away No4 on 65 mins for a trip, both cautions were correct in Law. In general your use of advantage allowed the game to flow, however, in the 82nd minute while you played a good advantage for an attempted trip by Away No12, the next action should have been a caution for that attempt as it was a reckless and a deliberate attempt to stop a promising attack. The attack resulted in a corner kick to Home team and also the fouled player No 8 shouting at you, if action had been taken then the No 8 would not have shouted. Overall your Application of Law was reasonable, however, not dealing with the away No12 could have given you problems. Your use of match control helped you deal with the No 8 but it could have gone wrong. All substitutions were handled well and efficiently.

Strengths

1 Application of Law:- You recognised and awarded the penalty kick on 37 mins and you correctly cautioned 2 Away team players.

2 Positioning and Movement:- Always up with play, close to the ball dropping zone and easily able to get from box to box. In position for the penalty kick and the away keeper handling the ball outside his area.

Development Points

1 Application of Law:- While advantage is a useful tool to have, you should take further action if required. For the type of challenge that occurred in the 82nd minute a caution should have been issued.

2 Match Control:- The incident in the 82nd minute could have got heated after the home No 8 had been fouled and you didn’t take any action, this led to you having to calm that player down. Dealing firmly with offending players will help your match control.

Sounds incredibly harsh to have marked you as "Below Standard" when by all accounts, you had only one incident in the whole game where the Observer has essentially disagreed with the action you've taken/not taken. I'd be a bit concerned about the reasoning he's used to be honest, If he feels the challenge in the 82nd minute was reckless then that's one thing but he actually mentions the fact that it was a deliberate attempt to stop a promising attack. Since you played advantage, that's surely irrelevant as the laws don't allow you to go back and caution that player anymore. Unless I'm missing something?
 
I've no idea how English assessments work but you'd be correct in law if you did not caution. Remember that when you play advantage after a case of SPA you can show a yellow card but not for SPA itself. It would have to be for a reckless tackle.
 
Can somebody tell me is it normal to discuss application of law in relation to match control? Again, I'm not based in England but it seems strange to me that 'you should have cautioned to prevent the fouled player being cross' is in there? Surely its either a caution or its not? I know there are some subjective ones but SPA really isn't one of them?
 
Sounds incredibly harsh to have marked you as "Below Standard" when by all accounts, you had only one incident in the whole game where the Observer has essentially disagreed with the action you've taken/not taken. I'd be a bit concerned about the reasoning he's used to be honest, If he feels the challenge in the 82nd minute was reckless then that's one thing but he actually mentions the fact that it was a deliberate attempt to stop a promising attack. Since you played advantage, that's surely irrelevant as the laws don't allow you to go back and caution that player anymore. Unless I'm missing something?

That’s exactly how I seen it at the time, mate.
 
Back
Top