Observation report

[Rob123]

Got my observers report back for 5-4. Got a poor mark. In what section for consistent recognition of careless and reckless fouls he marked more than 1 major dev and said I gave too many soft fouls ? (Bit of a weird comment)

A lot of stuff in the report wasn't mentioned in my debrief

Just frustrating to get a low mark

 

[es1]

too many soft fouls

This, for an observer, is an astounding statement. He's saying they are fouls ffs!

I'd be thinking about an appeal...there's plenty of people on here who'd happily take a proper look through for you and advise (me included).

 

[Rob123]

This, for an observer, is an astounding statement. He's saying they are fouls ffs!

I'd be thinking about an appeal...there's plenty of people on here who'd happily take a proper look through for you and advise (me included).

 

[RyantheRef]

This, for an observer, is an astounding statement. He's saying they are fouls ffs!

I'd be thinking about an appeal...there's plenty of people on here who'd happily take a proper look through for you and advise (me included).

I don't necessarily mind this comment. You don't have to give everything that could be a foul, and that's likely what he's getting at. Still, with no context or further explanation, that makes for bad reading.

 

[es1]

I don't necessarily mind this comment. You don't have to give everything that could be a foul, and that's likely what he's getting at. Still, with no context or further explanation, that makes for bad reading.

I perhaps wouldn't mind it in match control

 

[RyantheRef]

Having now read the comment, I double down and say that's a perfectly acceptable comment. The challenges had minimal contact and, since they were given as fouls, represent soft fouls.

 

[es1]

Having now read the comment, I double down and say that's a perfectly acceptable comment. The challenges had minimal contact and, since they were given as fouls, represent soft fouls.

Yeah it reads better than it came across.

I'd prefer not to use the term 'soft fouls' however as this suggests that a foul is a supportable decision (as much as i hate that term).

Does the observer not need timed examples at this level?

 

[Rob123]

Having now read the comment, I double down and say that's a perfectly acceptable comment. The challenges had minimal contact and, since they were given as fouls, represent soft fouls.

A soft foul is a foul

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I perhaps wouldn't mind it in match control

On this particular form, it doesn't "belong" under Match Control. Recognition of offences has its own section.

 

[Russell Jones]

A soft foul is a foul

The observer is not in fact saying that they were 'soft fouls'. He is saying that they were given as such, when, in his opinion, the contact was trivial. Obviously no idea if he is correct regarding the incidents in question but the feedback itself is completely supportable. Always disappointing / frustrating if the report doesn't tally with the debrief though

 

[santa sangria]

I would have prefered ”foul tolerance” etc

 

[JamesL]

Everyone just casually over looking the fact it says more than 1 major development.
We can argue all day as to whether the comment warrants major development, but what is surely obvious is there is only 1 (major) development noted.
I think the language used could be better, I think he is suggesting you gave some fouls for normal contact and this resulted in players embellishing contact leading to more fouls for minor contact. It's a fair development point it true.

As there's only one dev it is at least a 6.5 and not a 6.0 in my opinion and could/should be appealed on that basis that the mark awarded does not match the written text.

 

[DJIC]

is there any match footage from either club you can view on this match or any previous match to observe if this is a justified development point?

 

[Rob123]

Everyone just casually over looking the fact it says more than 1 major development.
We can argue all day as to whether the comment warrants major development, but what is surely obvious is there is only 1 (major) development noted.
I think the language used could be better, I think he is suggesting you gave some fouls for normal contact and this resulted in players embellishing contact leading to more fouls for minor contact. It's a fair development point it true.

As there's only one dev it is at least a 6.5 and not a 6.0 in my opinion and could/should be appealed on that basis that the mark awarded does not match the written text.

Thanks, I don't see how it can be more than 1.

Should I appeal ?

 

[Rob123]

is there any match footage from either club you can view on this match or any previous match to observe if this is a justified development point?

Nope

 

[JamesL]

Nope

I think I would. It's clearly the wrong mark awarded..it seems he has said more than 1 on the basis there was more than one "soft foul" but ultimately, that is a single development area.

 

[Rob123]

I think I would. It's clearly the wrong mark awarded..it seems he has said more than 1 on the basis there was more than one "soft foul" but ultimately, that is a single development area.

Never appealed before so don't know hoe to word it but will get in touch with observer co ordinator tomorrow

 

[RustyRef]

There are no timed examples, it is just a very generic comment. If it was a 6.5 I might let it go, but for a 6.0 it is very lazy observing and I don't think it would survive an appeal. If I was moderating I would want to see specific examples of where these "soft fouls" had been awarded, as it is written I'm not even sure a 6.5 is really supportable.

 

[Big Cat]

I agree it's worth appealing, but 32 fouls is indicative of 6.5 unless the game was unusual in some way. For example, a pressing need to give lots of foul tackles to prevent further misconduct in a heated game

@Rob123 whilst 6.0 is wrong, you should take heed of the foul count. As you progress, the players are more able to tolerate contact without losing balance. I think it also demonstrates confidence in your own ability to wait for those moments when you're certain the contact was careless or reckless, particularly with upper body stuff. This actually helps with consistency because you don't get lost giving some marginal decisions but not others and it can make for a better game in which the participants are appreciative of your anonymity. It's a real sickener when you get a mark that falls short of your expectations, but two weeks from now, once the disappointment has morphed into something more constructive, you'll be a better referee for the experience

 

[Rob123]

I agree it's worth appealing, but 32 fouls is indicative of 6.5 unless the game was unusual in some way. For example, a pressing need to give lots of foul tackles to prevent further misconduct in a heated game

@Rob123 whilst 6.0 is wrong, you should take heed of the foul count. As you progress, the players are more able to tolerate contact without losing balance. I think it also demonstrates confidence in your own ability to wait for those moments when you're certain the contact was careless or reckless, particularly with upper body stuff. This actually helps with consistency because you don't get lost giving some marginal decisions but not others and it can make for a better game in which the participants are appreciative of your anonymity. It's a real sickener when you get a mark that falls short of your expectations, but two weeks from now, once the disappointment has morphed into something more constructive, you'll be a better referee for the experience

Thanks. I appreciate the advice