A&H

Strange assessment

C

CiaranK

New Member
Level 6 Referee
my last two assessments were fine but have to say the one today was a bit strange.
Half way through the talk I give to my assistants the assessor interrupts me and starts to explain Law 11 to the assistants, never had that before.
Nice clean game had, no cautions, in my mind there was nothing to caution, only to hear at the end that he thought there should have been at least three. One of them should have been for delaying restart of play, ball had gone out for a yellow throw, blue player ran after the ball and passed it to the yellow player for him to take the throw on, I personally think we'd make ourselves look daft cautioning for that.
One of the development areas I had last time was not changing my position enough at corners so did this time, my development point this time was to stop changing my position at corners.
Time will tell, the assessor reckons I should get promoted so we'll see.
Just honestly don't know what's wanted a corners now.
 
The Referee Store
Why would the blue player throwing the ball to his opponent be delaying the restart?
I've always been taught to keep changing position at corners (realistically in the vast majority of games this won't matter) - but as position is all about averaging out possibilities, some games I've decided the bast action is to not change position. I can't imagine any possible reason for criticising you for changing positions though. As long as it was a comment and not a markdown I wouldn't worry too much.
 
I honestly don't know why he thought that, I even explained what the player was doing but he was still adamant that he should have been cautioned. Having looked at the team stats both teams combined have just 7 cautions all season (funnily enough 2 of them would have come from me earlier in the season), I honestly could not justify any caution today.
Another strange thing is when there was no foul but people may think there's a call for one I often shout "play on" but today was told should be shouting "advantage", I'm not playing advantage I'm letting both teams know there was nothing wrong with the tackle and continue playing, there is a difference.
Time will tell when I get the assessment through.
 
Well, your assessor clearly doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's doing.
People like this are so dangerous to the game. These are the ones that affect the promotion of referees, so have tremendous power and influence over all levels. I firmly believe that some of the problems with the top tier referees begin with the number of utterly incompetent grassroots assessors we have (actually, top-tier assessors have their own problems). If the wrong people are getting promoted, the the wrong people are going to wind up at the top tiers.

You absolutely do not call 'advantage'. You also shouldn't call 'play on', as that also means advantage. 'no foul' 'nothing there' 'keep playing' 'play!' etc are all fine.
 
Sorry, what I actually call is on the lines of what you say, I shout "nothing there, no foul, keep going". Very clearly, very loudly.
A real shame as the other 2 assessments gave real helpful comments. The only positive thing said was that on that game I should get promoted.
 
CiaranK said:
I'm not playing advantage I'm letting both teams know there was nothing wrong with the tackle and continue playing, there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Did you tell him that? Seems like misunderstanding that could have been cleared up in seconds.

Although an assessor shouldn't say such things, I dare say an assessor saying you should get promoted is sufficient praise. What more do you want?
 
Yes I did say that, likewise I told him why I didn't caution the player that passed the ball back to an opponent for a throw in for delaying the restart of play. It made not an ounce of difference.
I know the question of "what more do I want" is slightly rhetorical but until I get the assessment through they are just words.
What I would want is clearer development points, for example according to assessors I need to change position at corners whilst not changing position at corners. I don't expect to be spoon fed but hopefully you can see that wouldn't be too helpful in developing my game.
 
@CiaranK , I can completely empathise with your frustration on this issue/ My two years on promotion schemes have been remarkably similar ... some fantastic input and great development points mixed in with one or two confusing thoughts and the odd bit of contradiction!

Interestingly, I've already fed back to my FA that the single biggest area of differing opinions with our assessors seems to be with regard to positioning at corners (when working with CARs). And I think this demonstrates a strong element of 'personal preference' in their views. Some have a strong belief that being the 'goal line judge' is your #1 role at corners and therefore you shouldn't ever stray far from the goal line. Others believe that keeping players guessing on your position is the most critical thing, as fouls in the area happen more frequently than disputed goals and can be nearly as critical. So overall, in my experience, there is no 'correct' answer to this other than to hope you get the same assessors next year and you can remember their personal preferences!

On the cautions, the input does sound strange. More generally however, at Level 7 & 6, you tend to hear 10x as many stories of assessors feeling there should have been more cautions rather than less. So certainly worth erring on the strict side rather than the lenient ... :)
 
The official party line at Manchester CFA is they want the referee where the arc meets the PA for corners.
I used to be a goal line man myself but they put forward a pretty good point about leaving yourself 18 yards off the pace for a counter attack for the sake of a 1 in a 1000 incident of a goal/no goal decision.
 
Got my assessment through and it just compounds things for me. Nothing said now about cautions that should have been but a statement that I was fair to both sides and had good match control with no dissent to my decisions throughout the game.

Got below expected level for positioning and movement for the first time ever but the only comment was in regards to positions at some throw ins, which is strange as my last two assessments have commented on my strong positioning at these times so I would not change the approach to these since they had got a big thumbs up before and was no problem with other development assessments had previously. So either every assessor not only failed to spot the error before which places doubt on the assessments they have completed or this one is incorrect.

Overall got standard expected but if the assessments are going to be so different then to some extent they may as well just stay at home and toss a coin, heads you do okay, tails you don't.
Have never had a problem with constructive criticism, have had plenty of advice/criticism during previous times but the throw ins were never mentioned at feedback on the day.

Thanks for your replies though, I can't referee differently according to assessor though. Funny thing with the corner issue is that I've not heard the goal line argument before, never taken up that position because of the breaking play scenario and being too far behind. Just got to learn how to change position and not change position at the same time now.
 
Change your starting position but always finish in the same place (with NAR's, always where 'D' meets '18' on opposite side from AR). You're changing your position whilst keeping it the same!
 
My view on the positioning at corners depends upon the nature of corner (with CAR's).

Inswingers coming in under the bar, I recommend being on the goal line. Probability higher for the goal line decision, closer to dropping zone offences, etc.

If dropping zone is penalty spot, then edge of PA.

Best advise, change depending on circumstances. Think what is the right position not just assume one position is better than the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top