The Ref Stop

Level 4 Candidates

I am genuinely surprised that only 9 of the 12 Essex FA boys got through. Must be the first season for a long time that has happened, the expectation from our RDO was that Essex normally get all of the candidates through.

One of the guys that missed out is a good friend of mine and I don't know what to say to him now. I can only assume there was a cut-off for the average assessment mark, as the 3 that missed out where (I believe) the lowest averages. Gutted for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J-K
The Ref Stop
I didn't make the top 5 in the AFA, I'm really annoyed at the sh*tty assessment I got where I received a 2 for match control, it seems like that has probably cost me promotion. I understand that assessment marks are one way of ranking candidates, but it seems that a few double jumpers got in ahead of me in my county. I get that they may be good enough, but ranking them over a single season promotion candidate doesn't seem too fair.

Monotone, commiserations to your mate, if he's half as gutted as I am I feel sorry for him,
 
Yeah mate, It doesn't reflect well on Cornwall! Especially when the likes of the RN, Army and RAF which has a massively smaller amount of referees and FA volunteers have all managed to get over 2 each. It seems like I've made the correct decision to stay with the RN
 
There's another lad from my course in 2010 on that list....and there's 2 more got level 5 this season too.

It was a good course what can I say?!
 
Bear in mind it wasn't just the assessment marks. RDOs were asked to rank the candidates based on a number of things - assessments were most important, but they were also asked to take availability and administration into account.

The FA had shot themselves in the foot a bit, albeit accidentally. Two years ago the mark required to be nominated was 75, and they didn't get enough candidates and struggled for L4s all season as a result (I was a L3 back then and refereed loads of step 5 games that would have been done by L4s such was the shortage, and many of these games were refereed by L5s as well). So they dropped the requirement to 73 and said that this mark would guarantee promotion, then as a result last season had too many L4s, especially in some regions, so they left it at 73 but said that not everyone would be taken.

Somewhere like Cornwall might be a good (or bad example), limited clubs means they only need a certain number of L4s. If lots of candidates went for promotion and were guaranteed acceptance if averaging 73 they might end up with way too many, meaning existing L4s only get a game every other week. Whereas somewhere like London, where referees will have a huge number of step 3, 4 and 5 clubs within 40 miles of them, means they can accommodate far more level 4s.
 
RustyRef said:
Bear in mind it wasn't just the assessment marks. RDOs were asked to rank the candidates based on a number of things - assessments were most important, but they were also asked to take availability and administration into account.

The FA had shot themselves in the foot a bit, albeit accidentally. Two years ago the mark required to be nominated was 75, and they didn't get enough candidates and struggled for L4s all season as a result (I was a L3 back then and refereed loads of step 5 games that would have been done by L4s such was the shortage, and many of these games were refereed by L5s as well). So they dropped the requirement to 73 and said that this mark would guarantee promotion, then as a result last season had too many L4s, especially in some regions, so they left it at 73 but said that not everyone would be taken.

Somewhere like Cornwall might be a good (or bad example), limited clubs means they only need a certain number of L4s. If lots of candidates went for promotion and were guaranteed acceptance if averaging 73 they might end up with way too many, meaning existing L4s only get a game every other week. Whereas somewhere like London, where referees will have a huge number of step 3, 4 and 5 clubs within 40 miles of them, means they can accommodate far more level 4s.
Click to expand...

I recall 2-3 seasons ago something like 12 being promoted in WRCFA.
 
I know I look in the mirror everyday and I feel sympathy for myself having to live in West Yorkshire instead of Sunny Scarborough
 
I act as assistant on 2 separate supply leagues and on one in particular there are too many level 4's who really don't give a toss. They stroll up, ref the game (often not very well) and bugger off, whilst moaning about how hard done to they are and how they don't get as many middles as they want and have to line all the time, they don't listen to assessors and a generally just have a terrible attitude. I could name 10 that I have worked with that match that criteria. These are the referee's taking places that should be snapped up by hungry, ambitious, dedicated referee's.

I quite often have to bite my tongue as what I really want to say is.....Ah diddums, you have to run the line at semi pro level for contrib teams whilst learning from a great referee and when you do get middles you are ALWAYS in a team of three. You don't like it mate then do everyone a favour and step down as I know 50 lads ( and girls) that would love to be in your position.

I know of 4 guys who stepped down to level 5 and do you know what I take my hat to them, fair play. If it's not for you then step down, made a mistake? Then apply again and join the queue.

Sorry rant over!!!!
 
I have heard this "As a level 4, you line 90% of the time" thing a few times now and as much as I do agree with @Cheshire Ref on it not sounding like a terrible existence, it does appear to be true? I can imagine that if you have real ambitions of getting to L3 and just can't get the required number of middle in because you're given lines that you're not allowed to refuse without closing the date completely, it must get frustrating.
 
Last edited:
Cheshire ref is right; there are a few Level 4s who are bitter that they have never been selected for Level 3, and have got to the point now where they are going through the motions. Often they'll put their lack of upwards movement down to the fact that they're

a) too old
b) their face doesn't fit
c) 'so-and-so' at 12 different clubs hates them because of something that happened in 2008 so always marks them low

and most of that type of Level 4 have a story about 'that one season' where they were AA or AB and weren't taken. It's funny how they don't give a lot of consideration to the main reason:

OTHER PEOPLE WERE BETTER THAN THEM.

I haven't been a Level 4 for long but it really is a privilege. You've reached a level of senior football that most will never get to. @Darius sounds like an excited child from the way he's been posting recently, and that's exactly what I was like when I got mine!

I absolutely love my refereeing, and prefer it to lining. I enjoy the lines and get a lot out of them, but depending on where you live, you may only get 10 middles in the season. Make sure you give absolutely everything to those games. Try to motivate your assistants as well, which helps if you're upbeat and passionate about the game.

Most Level 4s are like me. Ignore the bitter, twisted minority.

EDIT: One more thing. When you get your assessments through, employ all the willpower you have to read the prose before you look at the mark. Most people zoom straight to the bottom to look at the mark, and then often disregard the advice inside.
 
Excited child is exactly how I feel! Opportunities are there now to experience the 'other side'.

As for the lining vs refereeing debate I enjoy doing both, but like most prefer being the leader of the team. The question that you have to ask yourself though is would you rather be on a line on a Contrib game in front of say 400-500 (possibly more) or in the middle at Dog and Duck Reserves where both teams only have 9 players so you don't ever have CARs?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top