First 5-4 assessment
- Thread starter frank_ref
- Start date
Monotone Whistle
Well-Known Member
Reads well. 76.
Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
I would go slightly higher to 78. Couldn't really ask for more.
78 ??? If that is what you expect from that assessment, i hate to see what you think of the marking if you get to L4.
Marking wise:
AL 4 * 5 = 20
MC 3.5 * 5 = 17.5
PF 4 * 2 = 8
AA 3.5 * 3 = 11.5
CO 3.5 * 2 = 7
TW 3.5 * 1 = 3.5
AD 3.5 * 2 = 7
Total = 75 (as 74.5)
There is only above standard comments in AL and Position/Fitness. I am sure that @Brian Hamilton can also over an opinion.
Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
I got 78 from my first 5-4 assessment on the first day of the season. So yes why not?
For a standard game at L4, the mark should be between 70 & 73. From say I assess 20 matches, I am not expected to mark higher than this on more than 3 or 4 occasions.
Now any mark above a 76, has to be reviewed by the Assessor Co-ordinator before the referees receives the assessment.
Just for future information, most first year referee will have a 70 or below in their first couple of assessment as they understand the expected level of officiating. As Assessors, we are not allowed to make any adjustment for first year referee and most are deficient in positioning with NAR and miss cautions (for which their is a mandatory deduction and mark ceiling in AL).
Getting above the 73, means you need either a good performance in a very challenging match or a "nailed on" performance in a difficult game. In a normal game, you are trying to make a 70 or 71 into 71 or 72. One whole mark will cover a number of referees and the band grading can be separated by factions of marks.
Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
Thats really good to know, thank you. Do you have any idea why you are not allowed to mark high, i don't quite get it. I was assesed on the line earlier this season and under development the assessor wrote "I have no development points for you other than to say "keep up the high standard of assisting you have already achieved" Mark 74...........
If a Ref is good he deserves a good mark but it seems assessors arent allowed to give them!!
If a Ref is good he deserves a good mark but it seems assessors arent allowed to give them!!
Two words - Neale Barry.
Guidance says the standard performance is 70 and as there is an expected standard. The mark grading says what we expect you to do to be standard. Getting extra is difficult.
Try and get a copy of the Supply League Assessors handbook, I don't have an electronic copy I can send. It will show what you need to do to get 7's...
Guidance says the standard performance is 70 and as there is an expected standard. The mark grading says what we expect you to do to be standard. Getting extra is difficult.
Try and get a copy of the Supply League Assessors handbook, I don't have an electronic copy I can send. It will show what you need to do to get 7's...
Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
I have a copy of the latest assessors handbook. It's so new, the typeset is still settling on the page. It's here
As for the report, I don't like doing these as you cannot always get the right spin that an assessor puts on a particular competency. Here we go...
AL 4 * 5 = 20 (possibly pushing 4.5 depending on how much the assessor likes you ... which would give you 78)
MC 3.5 * 5 = 17.5
PF 4 * 2 = 8
AA 4 * 3 = 12
CO 3.5 * 2 = 7
TW 3.5 * 1 = 3.5
AD 3.5 * 2 = 7
75
As for averages, I tend to assess somewhere between 27 and 35 games a season at that level. My average mark for the last few seasons has been
72.67 - current season (only had 1 sub 70 mark so far this season, usually have 3-4)
72.33 - 2014/15
71.85 - 2013/14
72.62 - 2012/13
72.97 - 2011/12
The reason why we can't give high marks is because we receive strong guidance on what constitutes a high mark in the heavily weighted competencies of Application of Law, Decision Making/Accuracy and Match Control and have to provide strong supporting evidence to justify anything above 7.5.
As for the report, I don't like doing these as you cannot always get the right spin that an assessor puts on a particular competency. Here we go...
AL 4 * 5 = 20 (possibly pushing 4.5 depending on how much the assessor likes you ... which would give you 78)
MC 3.5 * 5 = 17.5
PF 4 * 2 = 8
AA 4 * 3 = 12
CO 3.5 * 2 = 7
TW 3.5 * 1 = 3.5
AD 3.5 * 2 = 7
75
As for averages, I tend to assess somewhere between 27 and 35 games a season at that level. My average mark for the last few seasons has been
72.67 - current season (only had 1 sub 70 mark so far this season, usually have 3-4)
72.33 - 2014/15
71.85 - 2013/14
72.62 - 2012/13
72.97 - 2011/12
The reason why we can't give high marks is because we receive strong guidance on what constitutes a high mark in the heavily weighted competencies of Application of Law, Decision Making/Accuracy and Match Control and have to provide strong supporting evidence to justify anything above 7.5.
frank_ref
Well-Known Member
Thanks guys. So mark for this one was 74. 4's in Application in Law and Communication, 3.5's in everything else. I was happy enough with it at first - but that was when I thought each section was out of 4, later realising it was 5! 
Certain things I find a little puzzling. Like the 3.5 in teamwork, which was commended (is that the highest it can be with NARs?) and the 3.5 in Positioning and Fitness. I can understand he highlighted my not varying my placement on corners - something I normally do do, but didn't because a previous assessor told me to always stand at the far post - but on a pitch 123 yards long, with two teams playing long ball, and strikers weaving in and out playing right on the defenders' shoulders, I'd call that pretty challenging. In that section at least, if not the match as a whole.
Anyways, it is what it is, and given it's above 73 I'm okay with it. Thanks for the interesting feedback. Definitely something to learn from.
Certain things I find a little puzzling. Like the 3.5 in teamwork, which was commended (is that the highest it can be with NARs?) and the 3.5 in Positioning and Fitness. I can understand he highlighted my not varying my placement on corners - something I normally do do, but didn't because a previous assessor told me to always stand at the far post - but on a pitch 123 yards long, with two teams playing long ball, and strikers weaving in and out playing right on the defenders' shoulders, I'd call that pretty challenging. In that section at least, if not the match as a whole.
Anyways, it is what it is, and given it's above 73 I'm okay with it. Thanks for the interesting feedback. Definitely something to learn from.
Read the link from my previous post and make sure you do everything in the above average sections of AOL, MC and DMThanks guys. So mark for this one was 74. 4's in Application in Law and Communication, 3.5's in everything else. I was happy enough with it at first - but that was when I thought each section was out of 4, later realising it was 5!
Certain things I find a little puzzling. Like the 3.5 in teamwork, which was commended (is that the highest it can be with NARs?) and the 3.5 in Positioning and Fitness. I can understand he highlighted my not varying my placement on corners - something I normally do do, but didn't because a previous assessor told me to always stand at the far post - but on a pitch 123 yards long, with two teams playing long ball, and strikers weaving in and out playing right on the defenders' shoulders, I'd call that pretty challenging. In that section at least, if not the match as a whole.
Anyways, it is what it is, and given it's above 73 I'm okay with it. Thanks for the interesting feedback. Definitely something to learn from.
Cheshire Ref
RefChat Addict
