RefSix

Stats

SWRef

New Member
#1
So what kind of distances do you guys usually cover during your games? I'm averaging 8.6km in my games so far this season, but feel like I'm not doing enough sprints. Averaging 0.33km sprints (1%) and just under 1km running on the refsix app. Does that sound about right, or am I being lazy?
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#2
So what kind of distances do you guys usually cover during your games? I'm averaging 8.6km in my games so far this season, but feel like I'm not doing enough sprints. Averaging 0.33km sprints (1%) and just under 1km running on the refsix app. Does that sound about right, or am I being lazy?
I'll run between 5 and 5.5 miles depending on the size of the pitch
However, I don't trust the accuracy of my Garmin Fenix 5s for this sort of thing. According to 'Which testing', the Polar 800 is most accurate
I worked with a level 5 old boy recently and he claimed to have run 6 miles or so in a game in which he didn't move around much! So I think comparing one another's numbers is fairly pointless
 
Last edited:

Tino Best

RefChat Addict
#3
5.81 miles in my last OA match. But its normally 5.5 miles. As for the rest if I have sweated and have been out of breath there is probably more running than not
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#4
5.81 miles in my last OA match. But its normally 5.5 miles. As for the rest if I have sweated and have been out of breath there is probably more running than not
Not sure what your observer was like, but down here they want us busting a gut to get from one touchline to the other. I don't even think being off the pitch is wide enough for them. Reckon I'll be touching 10 miles in my games if i obey orders :drool:
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#7
My average is 8.4 on a polar Vantage. This is with NARs where I feel as though I do less running given less of the pitch I need to be right on top of.
I would expect I exceed and regularly did on the v800 9k per game when on own.
There are so many variables involved that how accurate the devices are during reffing is debatable given the random, repeated changes of pace and direction.
Then there is the variation in tech in each device.
Then there is each individual devices refresh rate.
Comparing will provide very little.
Every game is different and you will over more ground in some games than others because play demands it.
For example, Saturday just gone I did 3.7k in first half as that's what the game demanded, then came off having done 8.55k so almost and extra kilometre in 1 half.
 
Last edited:
#9
According to 'Which testing', the Polar 800 is most accurate
(Love Polar, worked for them, don't get me wrong) but the tests were probably not for backwards, sideways, endless pace changes etc.

I understood that top refs might do 12 (maybe not quite 14km - Frank Lampard territory!) and I reckon that 9-10km is about right for a serious all action grassroots display.

Tracking on the line seems far more likely to be accurate and I am pretty confident in 4.5km for a quieter game rising to 6.5km in the most extreme (remember to turn off for the walk back to the changing rooms!).

I'd love to try e.g. Playertek and get a better idea.
 

RobOda

RefChat Addict
#10
My last three competitive matches going backwards is:

5.08 miles,
5.52 miles,
5.29 miles.

When I was doing pre-season friendlies I was clocking in at 4.7 and 4.6 miles. I think a lot of it depends on the game though. That 5.5 miles was with ARs, the other two I was on my own.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#11
I think I've posted this before, but most GPS watches really struggle with refereeing due to the "polling interval". The majority check your position every 5 seconds, and for most activities they can then guestimate your path as you are moving in a straight line. That doesn't work for refereeing as you obviously change direction a lot and it totally confuses the watch.

The Polar v800 by default is every 5 seconds, but it has an option of changing to every second, with the proviso that this will drain the battery much faster. I enabled that when I changed from a Garmin Forerunner to it, and it really was a game changer in the distances I thought I was covering, down by as much as a third. To check it wasn't my body that was broken I switched back to the Garmin and the distances went right back up again, as did they when I set the v800 back to the default polling setting. Bottom line is that distances covered when refereeing are a very rough guess when using anything but the very top end GPS watches.
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
#12
I think I've posted this before, but most GPS watches really struggle with refereeing due to the "polling interval". The majority check your position every 5 seconds, and for most activities they can then guestimate your path as you are moving in a straight line. That doesn't work for refereeing as you obviously change direction a lot and it totally confuses the watch.

The Polar v800 by default is every 5 seconds, but it has an option of changing to every second, with the proviso that this will drain the battery much faster. I enabled that when I changed from a Garmin Forerunner to it, and it really was a game changer in the distances I thought I was covering, down by as much as a third. To check it wasn't my body that was broken I switched back to the Garmin and the distances went right back up again, as did they when I set the v800 back to the default polling setting. Bottom line is that distances covered when refereeing are a very rough guess when using anything but the very top end GPS watches.
Which would explain the reduction in max speed and distance when upgrading from v800 to vantage V.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#13
Which would explain the reduction in max speed and distance when upgrading from v800 to vantage V.
Yes, if you had the v800 on default setting as the Vantage V has an interval of one second that can't be changed. Therefore it will be much more accurate.
 

RobOda

RefChat Addict
#16
I think I've posted this before, but most GPS watches really struggle with refereeing due to the "polling interval". The majority check your position every 5 seconds, and for most activities they can then guestimate your path as you are moving in a straight line.
Fitbit Ionic is on one second intervals apparently. It's done a relatively good job when I've hit it on measured training sessions.

Imagine your distances if you went forwards!
Stop picking on my English! :p
 
#17
I usually average around 8 - 9km per match, depending on speed of the game. Anything under 8km and I feel like I’m not moving enough to get into good positions. Even the poorest grass roots football will require a decent amount of moving.

Accuracy is relevant. As long as you’re using the same device, doesn’t necessarily matter if it reads 8km when the real distance is 7.5km. I aim to be above 8km using the same device as I feel this is the movement, energy needed. If in reality it’s 7 or 9km, doesn’t matter. I feel the reading of 8km on my device is where I should be.

But you definitely need to get a device that allows 1 second interval recording and turn that on. I have the Garmin vivoactive 3 music and I’ve found it quite accurate.
 

Tino Best

RefChat Addict
#18
I use mine as a guide. If I am down on distance it could be due to the game it could be hot, but I do tend to be with in the same range for all different age groups. ie OA 5.5 U18s 5 etc
 
#20
I'm a gadget guy, so I do have a Garmin Fenix 5 and the StatSpots GPS tracker. I haven't done a lot of games with both systems (I was injured this fall), but the times I used both at the same time I was generally within 0.1 miles. For example, I did a U13 boys game (my first game back, so admittedly not as fit as I'd really like to be), and I did 4.7 miles on StatSport and 4.6 on the Garmin. I was honestly expecting those numbers to be switched.

At my best, I've done as many as 7.75 miles (Garmin measured) for a 110-minute (45 minute halves and two 10-minute extra time periods). For most games U16 and up, I generally am between 6.0 and 6.5 miles per game.
 
Top