A&H

Frustrating Level 4 Assessment

T

TomtheRef 1

New Member
Level 4 Referee
Observed recently as a Level 4. Game went well, couple of cautions and match control good. Good management of benches which stamped out any dissent early on. No KMD’s. One mass con resulting in 2 yellows.

Observer said after the game that my match control was excellent and all decisions correct. All really positive.

Got the report back and scored 71.8! Some way below the average and incredibly frustrating. Seems that having a good game and no majors development, being proactive with man management and benches is not enough to score slightly higher marks to bring. Frustrating but key thing was all the teams were happy with my teams performance!
 
The Referee Store
TomtheRef 1 said:
Observed recently as a Level 4. Game went well, couple of cautions and match control good. Good management of benches which stamped out any dissent early on. No KMD’s. One mass con resulting in 2 yellows.

Observer said after the game that my match control was excellent and all decisions correct. All really positive.

Got the report back and scored 71.8! Some way below the average and incredibly frustrating. Seems that having a good game and no majors development, being proactive with man management and benches is not enough to score slightly higher marks to bring. Frustrating but key thing was all the teams were happy with my teams performance!
Click to expand...
This is similar to threads earlier in the season when colleagues were unhappy with the mark awarded.
Comments (as an Observer/Coach/ Mentor) :
1) You have said that the observer told you that your match control was excellent. What mark did they give you in that section?
2) You have said the mark you were given is below the local average. Observers do not know the local average, except at the end of the season, and each observation is based on the 90 minutes they watch. In my area, and some others, the Observers are sent a list at the end of the season showing the overall average mark in the league and the average for each observer.
3) You have the right of appeal if you believe the mark does not reflect the words used by the Observer. If the Observer said "Match Control was excellent" that should reflect in that section of the report.
4) Did any other sections of the report include marks you felt were lower than you deserved?
 
TomtheRef 1 said:
Observed recently as a Level 4. Game went well, couple of cautions and match control good. Good management of benches which stamped out any dissent early on. No KMD’s. One mass con resulting in 2 yellows.

Observer said after the game that my match control was excellent and all decisions correct. All really positive.

Got the report back and scored 71.8! Some way below the average and incredibly frustrating. Seems that having a good game and no majors development, being proactive with man management and benches is not enough to score slightly higher marks to bring. Frustrating but key thing was all the teams were happy with my teams performance!
Click to expand...
It happens. And you really have to just get used to it.
A game will come where you get a score higher than you expect.
All you can do really is use the advice contained within the report to improve your game and don't worry about the mark*. The beauty of averages are that they will even themselves out.
Remember, lots of other referees will also get the same observer and 71.8 might be a high mark for them.
Then there is the observer feedback form. Make sure it is recorded.

*Side point -when the new observation scheme was introduced I believe the intention was for an average standard expected game would produce a score of 70. I personally don't think this has worked based on average marks on each pool. The FA wanted referees to focus More on the content, but, as could have been predicted, before a report is read, a very quick scroll to the bottom occurs first to look at the mark.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
2) You have said the mark you were given is below the local average. Observers do not know the local average, except at the end of the season, and each observation is based on the 90 minutes they watch. In my area, and some others, the Observers are sent a list at the end of the season showing the overall average mark in the league and the average for each observer.
Click to expand...
Not having this one. It might be how it is supposed to happen, and might be true of yourself, and perhaps some of your closer colleagues but I can assure you there are plenty of observers out there who are more than aware of the average.
Observers and referees talk to each other, at games, as friends, training events etc. and I have heard average being mentioned, and dropped in so it's not true to say that observers don't know.it.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
This is similar to threads earlier in the season when colleagues were unhappy with the mark awarded.
Comments (as an Observer/Coach/ Mentor) :
1) You have said that the observer told you that your match control was excellent. What mark did they give you in that section?
2) You have said the mark you were given is below the local average. Observers do not know the local average, except at the end of the season, and each observation is based on the 90 minutes they watch. In my area, and some others, the Observers are sent a list at the end of the season showing the overall average mark in the league and the average for each observer.
3) You have the right of appeal if you believe the mark does not reflect the words used by the Observer. If the Observer said "Match Control was excellent" that should reflect in that section of the report.
4) Did any other sections of the report include marks you felt were lower than you deserved?
Click to expand...
This is very much not a criticism of the observer. I’m just suggesting that I was disappointed in my own mark as I’d come away feeling confident of a good performance and hoping for a strong score however this wasn’t full the case. One to learn from but as I said the most important thing for me was that everyone was happy, including myself with me and my teams performance.

The match control section has 5 points but only 1 scored above average which I felt could have been at least 2.

I am finding though that I’m learning a lot through being observed, including what certain observers seem to like and others don’t. By doing my natural game I’m getting good feedback on how to develop the skills that got me this far which I suppose is the point of the observer system 😃
 
Trust me, it is a lot better now than it used to be, even if you get a below average mark it isn't necessarily the end of the day. Back when you needed 78+ to go up and you got a low marking assessor that never marks above 73 that was your season effectively over, no way of recovering those lost marks.

On the season I went up to L3 my marks were 80,84,82,79,79 and 80. The season before was almost the same except one of those 80s was a 73, in a game that the assessor described as an outstanding performance. I subsequently found that 73 he gave me was the highest he gave all season, but it knocked me down to 5th place and I missed out.

As has been said, if he described your match control was excellent (and you have witnesses to that) but that isn't reflected on the form you can appeal it. Be careful though, as marks go down as much as they go up on appeal, if the panel looking at the appeal determine a competency has been marked too high based on the comments they can mark it down. They don't just look at the competency(s) that you are appealing against.
 
Standard mate. Observers at 4 are an absolute lottery. Some decent and some absolutely garbage.
 
I got the same mark having had what I thought was a good game between 1st and 3rd in my local step 5 league. It just seemed a nonsense mark considering there was a DOGSO red/pen which was agreed I got right. But I've had higher marks than expected on occasion too.



My experience of observation scores/observers is its far too random. I was marked down for missing a clear offside on the line at a step 4 game when video evidence showed he was clearly onside (which I knew at the time). I've seen an AR raise his flag for offside for a goal and then put it down (you can imagine the scenes). He got an excellent mark!

I try and take the bits of development that seem relevant and ignore aot of the rest. Again, I've had really good observations and development advice that really helped me, so I'm not being negative. It just all seems random but there's no better way. The better observers are going up the league just like the refs
 
JamesL said:
Those that want to, anyway.

Plenty of decent who don't want to go any higher.
Click to expand...
Correct. I've actually stepped away from supply league observing as I get a lot more out of coaching grass roots referees, or observing 5 to 4 candidates. They generally need a lot more moulding to become better referees, much less so at supply league and certainly a lot less so at contrib. Although that was also partly due to the ridiculous no debriefs in changing rooms rule, which has now been dropped.
 
RustyRef said:
Trust me, it is a lot better now than it used to be, even if you get a below average mark it isn't necessarily the end of the day. Back when you needed 78+ to go up and you got a low marking assessor that never marks above 73 that was your season effectively over, no way of recovering those lost marks.

On the season I went up to L3 my marks were 80,84,82,79,79 and 80. The season before was almost the same except one of those 80s was a 73, in a game that the assessor described as an outstanding performance. I subsequently found that 73 he gave me was the highest he gave all season, but it knocked me down to 5th place and I missed out.

As has been said, if he described your match control was excellent (and you have witnesses to that) but that isn't reflected on the form you can appeal it. Be careful though, as marks go down as much as they go up on appeal, if the panel looking at the appeal determine a competency has been marked too high based on the comments they can mark it down. They don't just look at the competency(s) that you are appealing against.
Click to expand...
Rusty, you can't get promoted in my league with a 71.8
71.8 is a show stopper cos 4x73s wouldn't get you back to my average and I won't be going up
 
I've long since advocated for the system to ignore your best and weakest scores and to take the average from the rest. Sure this bunches things up further but removes the outliers from the mix
 
TomtheRef 1 said:
Observed recently as a Level 4. Game went well, couple of cautions and match control good. Good management of benches which stamped out any dissent early on. No KMD’s. One mass con resulting in 2 yellows.

Observer said after the game that my match control was excellent and all decisions correct. All really positive.

Got the report back and scored 71.8! Some way below the average and incredibly frustrating. Seems that having a good game and no majors development, being proactive with man management and benches is not enough to score slightly higher marks to bring. Frustrating but key thing was all the teams were happy with my teams performance!
Click to expand...
Try cautioning everything that moves
Unfortunately, the biggest variable with observed games is seemingly luck. You need to tick boxes that don't always present themselves. I scored a 72 4 in my worst assessment cos I know what the boxes are, even tho i had a fairly crap game in all honesty and almost certainly got one penalty guess wrong which determined the outcome. I spend more time looking for tickboxes than concentrating on the game
 
Last edited:
One thing for sure, observers know the average!

Happy New Year to our wonderful Observer Cummunity!
 
Big Cat said:
One thing for sure, observers know the average!

Happy New Year to our wonderful Observer Cummunity!
Click to expand...
I may be the exception here, but not only do our local observers not know the league average, it has no purpose in how we work.
The marking scheme is laid down nationally, and whilst historically there have been big differences between one part of the country and another, that gap has narrowed considerably in recent seasons.
As Rusty has said, the days of lots of marks closer to 80 than 70 are behind us. Referees performing to the expected standard should now expect a mark between 70 and 73.
The performance over 90 minutes is what should lead to the mark, irrespective of the official's previous record.
There are limits on the number of times that any observer can watch a referee (twice a season at Levels 3 and 4) to help in the level playing field argument.
Each observer's work is reviewed regularly to ensure that we get as close as possible to the system working fairly.
Ignore all the above if you wish - just have a good 2023, everyone😁
 
lincs22 said:
If I came back to L4 - which category would I be in?
Click to expand...
hahaha no comment

no absolutely the top category.

with some of your colleagues, you know what you're getting before you turn up and you take their 'advice' with a pinch of salt.

although if you came back to L4 you'd probably miss me though as I'm planning to drop back at the end of the season
 
TomtheRef 1 said:
Observed recently as a Level 4. Game went well, couple of cautions and match control good. Good management of benches which stamped out any dissent early on. No KMD’s. One mass con resulting in 2 yellows.

Observer said after the game that my match control was excellent and all decisions correct. All really positive.

Got the report back and scored 71.8! Some way below the average and incredibly frustrating. Seems that having a good game and no majors development, being proactive with man management and benches is not enough to score slightly higher marks to bring. Frustrating but key thing was all the teams were happy with my teams performance!
Click to expand...
Feel your frustration. Had the exact same on my first game of the season. As previously documented before. I'm still sour about the mark and not appealing it at the time.

If some observers are known to be tighter, than perhaps observers should have a weighting system. One who gives an average of 72.5 and one who gives an average of 71.5 can completely make or break a season.

I would also advocate that you should be able to appeal for a longer period than 7 days.
 
MattTheRef said:
Feel your frustration. Had the exact same on my first game of the season. As previously documented before. I'm still sour about the mark and not appealing it at the time.

If some observers are known to be tighter, than perhaps observers should have a weighting system. One who gives an average of 72.5 and one who gives an average of 71.5 can completely make or break a season.

I would also advocate that you should be able to appeal for a longer period than 7 days.
Click to expand...

i'm still sour about mine from earlier this season, if it had been an average mark (which the observer admitted he intended to award) then I would be in quite a good position

instead I realistically need 2 x 73+ games to have any chance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top