Sock Tape

[PP62]

I bought a load of different colour tape when I was on a (successful) level 4 promotion campaign a few years back and ever since have carried it in my bag so there are no excuses. If they have no tape I let them have a bit of mine. I agree, it's not one of the most important laws but you're setting your stall out before you've even kicked off and really easy to apply

 

[xPositor]

I bought a load of different colour tape when I was on a (successful) level 4 promotion campaign a few years back and ever since have carried it in my bag so there are no excuses. If they have no tape I let them have a bit of mine. I agree, it's not one of the most important laws but you're setting your stall out before you've even kicked off and really easy to appy.

At a very reasonable rate per leg, I trust!

 

[GraemeS]

It matters because IFAB says it matters. You could use that argument about so many laws. What does it really matter if the ball leaves the area on FK or GK? And why are perfectly good referees theoretically at risk of failing promotion because they have chosen to ignore it?

At the end of the day perfectly good referee's (and judging by previous well written posts i would think you are one) shouldn't be missing it full stop.

99% of the LOTG can be summarised as either "laws relating to player safety" or "laws relating to fair play". Some bits relate to both. And I'm more than happy to go out there and hand out free kicks, cards and any appropriate after-match sanctions to make sure that safety and fair play are maintained and respected. Sock tape (that doesn't clash with opponents kits) is neither of those things and therefore, is a much much lower priority.

 

[Russell Jones]

@GraemeS . I am 100% with you as to the relative unimportance of this law in relation to 99% of others. And I wish it had never been introduced.

HOWEVER. In any season there many hundreds of referees going for peomotion who know full well that if they don't apply this law they will run the risk of a telling off and / or losing cheap marks as a result. So they apply it to the letter. Any referee that knowingly deprioritises this law is therefore making the life of these ambitious referees harder as a result. Because players will experience the inconsistency and will from the get go by irritated by the 'officiousness' of referees that do enforce it. So any chance of doing your colleagues a favour and just implementing it despite your personal preferences?

 

[GraemeS]

People seem to be consistently ignoring the question I asked at the start of the thread.

It's a stupid law. But putting that aside...why do observers love it so much? And why does it make sense to use this to justify taking marks away from referees who might otherwise be an asset to the sport?

 

[Brian Hamilton]

People seem to be consistently ignoring the question I asked at the start of the thread.

It's a stupid law. But putting that aside...why do observers love it so much? And why does it make sense to use this to justify taking marks away from referees who might otherwise be an asset to the sport?

Observers don't love it so much, we love all the laws equally. If you or any other referee does not enforce Law 4, then you can expect consequences. The FA were very clear in drafting the Supply League handbook by stating that a failure on Law 4 means a 0.5 mark deduction (2.5 marks after multiplier effect) or a maximum of 7.0 on that section. If The FA say you do it a certain way, you do it that way. You don't think it's stupid, you are not there to reason over how sensible a law is, you're just there to apply and enforce. When you don't, you just make life harder for all those who do enforce the law. You become LWR

 

[Padfoot]

Hence, why I "would make reference of the fact in my post-match debrief" - i.e. "YorkshireReferee, I noticed that numbers 8 and 7 of HOMETEAM had the incorrect socktape. Whilst I will not reference this in my report, please be aware that this is stipulated in Law 4 - i.e. socktape must be the same colour as the part of the sock it is applied to, and other observers would pick you up on this"

P.S. - no-one is assessed anymore. We observe.

It's a mandatory requirement under the LOTG.....there is no possible justification for excluding it from the report.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Hence, why I "would make reference of the fact in my post-match debrief" - i.e. "YorkshireReferee, I noticed that numbers 8 and 7 of HOMETEAM had the incorrect socktape. Whilst I will not reference this in my report, please be aware that this is stipulated in Law 4 - i.e. socktape must be the same colour as the part of the sock it is applied to, and other observers would pick you up on this"

P.S. - no-one is assessed anymore. We observe.

It's quite possible to have this happen. If there are issues which the observer regards as higher priority with a greater impact on the game, then items may be mentioned in the de-brief which do not find their way on to the report. For example a failure to dismiss for a DOGSO or dismissing when a caution should be issued carries more weight than a pair of non-matching undershorts which appeared every third run by a player. The former would have to go in the report, whereas there may not be enough room for the latter, especially if other aspects needed to be highlighted which were linked to the dismissal.

 

[Padfoot]

Plenty of room to write everything on the report.....agreed that it may not be the most serious deficiency that needs to be highlighted but as its a mandatory requirement it will be in the report.

Its really falling at the first hurdle....such a simple thing to get right.

 

[ref craig]

Unfortunately @Padfoot @Brian Hamilton is right I go around with an observer to learn and there only aloud to give 3 development points so anything that is more important than that of a thing like sock tape will take priority over like an excessive force tackle that a referee might of missed.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

People seem to be consistently ignoring the question I asked at the start of the thread.

It's a stupid law. But putting that aside...why do observers love it so much? And why does it make sense to use this to justify taking marks away from referees who might otherwise be an asset to the sport?

Because it's a requirement under the LOTG. Our job is to apply the law - even the parts we disagree with. You're not seriously arguing that a referee shouldn't be marked down for blatantly ignoring a B&W part of the law, are you?
When I was assessing I didn't have any love for this aspect of the law -but I did have an expectation for referees to apply it. In fact, I would be rather annoyed when a referee forces their own assessment to lose marks from this - it's such an easy win!

 

[GraemeS]

Because it's a requirement under the LOTG. Our job is to apply the law - even the parts we disagree with. You're not seriously arguing that a referee shouldn't be marked down for blatantly ignoring a B&W part of the law, are you?
When I was assessing I didn't have any love for this aspect of the law -but I did have an expectation for referees to apply it. In fact, I would be rather annoyed when a referee forces their own assessment to lose marks from this - it's such an easy win!

No - I'm asking if that should be a part of the assessment, if otherwise good referees should lose marks because of sock tape. Essentially, if it makes any sense for it to be part of the law!

According to Brian above, sock tape can cost a referee 2.5 marks out of 100. Average (and generally accepted pass mark at 5-4) is 73 I believe? Sock tape can therefore be the difference between a pretty good report of 75 and a potentially failing grade of 72.5. Or, if you look at it another way, the difference between an average performance of 73 and a near-season-ruining performance of 70.5. Because of sock tape. That doesn't strike you as problematic, regardless of why it's there in the assessment?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

If the laws require referees to apply the law then how could an assessment ignore it?

Sock tape can therefore be the difference between a pretty good report of 75 and a potentially failing grade of 72.5. Or, if you look at it another way, the difference between an average performance of 73 and a near-season-ruining performance of 70.5. Because of sock tape. That doesn't strike you as problematic, regardless of why it's there in the assessment?

You seem to be trying to blame the assessor for the referee's error. If the referee fails to apply a mandatory part of the law then he only has himself to blame.
It's a markdown because it's part of the law. I genuinely don't see how marking a referee down for not applying a mandatory law is a problem. It's only a small mark which reflects its severity.

 

[GraemeS]

If the laws require referees to apply the law then how could an assessment ignore it?



You seem to be trying to blame the assessor for the referee's error. If the referee fails to apply a mandatory part of the law then he only has himself to blame.
It's a markdown because it's part of the law. I genuinely don't see how marking a referee down for not applying a mandatory law is a problem. It's only a small mark which reflects its severity.

I'm not blaming the individual assessors, I'm trying to discuss the criteria. Assessments should be designed to determine between good and less-good referees. Is it legitimate for the FA to consider someone a less-good referee (and therefore potentially not deserving of promotion) because they miss a piece of sock tape? I think no...do you disagree with that?

 

[Cheshire Ref]

@GraemeS you seem to be ignoring all the points made here to validate your own. We referee to laws of the game. Observers, observe us on our application of the laws of the game. If a law is not applied then marks will be deducted. Personally i would be very very annoyed with myself if i missed this and was marked down. Control the controlables. Get the very basic stuff right and get those easy marks in the bag, then comes the harder bit of refereeing a game and finding out whether the referee is in fact a good referee and deserving of promotion.

 

[Padfoot]

Unfortunately @Padfoot @Brian Hamilton is right I go around with an observer to learn and there only aloud to give 3 development points so anything that is more important than that of a thing like sock tape will take priority over like an excessive force tackle that a referee might of missed.

Agreed that it might not make in as a development point, however, there is absolutely no reason it cannot be referred to in the body of the report.

The idea of the observation to provide feedback to a referee on areas that they do well and not so well. Completely neglecting to mention, in writing, an area where they need to improve is, imho, a failing on the part of the observer.

It's all very well claiming you would mention it in the 10 min debrief after the game, but the reality is that the referee will largely ignore anything that doesn't appear in the final report. By putting in the report, whether as a development point or not, you are reinforcing what you have told them in the debrief. For candidates who are part of their CORE groups, you are also providing the RDO with information on how their selected referees are performing, presuming you have an RDO who is actually interested in the job and bothers to read observations before just sending them straight out.
If you merely rely on the verbal feedback and don't include it anywhere in the report, that information is lost.

Maybe it's just me....maybe I'm too thorough......but if I talk about it in the debrief, especially if its something the referee can do better, it will be in the report. Whether its a development point or not will depend on what else has happened during the observation.
All I know is that our RDO is very happy with the standard of my reports, regularly congratulating me on producing some of the best reports he reads each marking season.

 

[GraemeS]

@GraemeS you seem to be ignoring all the points made here to validate your own. We referee to laws of the game. Observers, observe us on our application of the laws of the game. If a law is not applied then marks will be deducted. Personally i would be very very annoyed with myself if i missed this and was marked down. Control the controlables. Get the very basic stuff right and get those easy marks in the bag, then comes the harder bit of refereeing a game and finding out whether the referee is in fact a good referee and deserving of promotion.

A law is a law - I get that. But you've never debated if a law (outside of football) is justified or correct? People all over the world campaign to change laws, because they believe the laws are poorly thought through, unfair or just wrong. And I'm suggesting that this law is poorly thought through when it comes to the implications on promotion of grassroots referees.

EDIT: In fact, I've been involved in multiple discussions on this forum regarding the new 2016/17 laws and if various changes were good or bad. This is something we do all the time as referees, so I'm very surprised to see that no one seems to want to condemn this aspect of the laws.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

A law is a law - I get that. But you've never debated if a law (outside of football) is justified or correct? People all over the world campaign to change laws, because they believe the laws are poorly thought through, unfair or just wrong. And I'm suggesting that this law is poorly thought through when it comes to the implications on promotion of grassroots referees.

EDIT: In fact, I've been involved in multiple discussions on this forum regarding the new 2016/17 laws and if various changes were good or bad. This is something we do all the time as referees, so I'm very surprised to see that no one seems to want to condemn this aspect of the laws.

@GraemeS your original argument was that an assessor shouldn't mark you down for not applying this particular law, because it's "not a big deal". So yes i agree that we all debate laws but while we are debating them does that change the punishment?

Like i said many posts ago i don't disagree with you that this law is a bit of a nonsense but while it is there we have to apply it and cannot complain if we are marked down if we don't.

 

[Russell Jones]

A law is a law - I get that. But you've never debated if a law (outside of football) is justified or correct? People all over the world campaign to change laws, because they believe the laws are poorly thought through, unfair or just wrong. And I'm suggesting that this law is poorly thought through when it comes to the implications on promotion of grassroots referees.

EDIT: In fact, I've been involved in multiple discussions on this forum regarding the new 2016/17 laws and if various changes were good or bad. This is something we do all the time as referees, so I'm very surprised to see that no one seems to want to condemn this aspect of the laws.

Graeme, no problem at all debating whether laws are good or bad. And think you're hearing a consensus on here that this particular law is ill thought, especially at grass roots level.

But the point of your thread was to get opinions on whether it was right for assessors to mark down candidates in this area. And you've heard an overwhelming response that people believe it is right and fair for this to happen. You may still disagree .. that is your prerogative. As long as you realise and can live with the fact that if you follow through on your opinion by not implementing this Law, you are making life harder for your colleagues.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I'm not blaming the individual assessors, I'm trying to discuss the criteria. Assessments should be designed to determine between good and less-good referees. Is it legitimate for the FA to consider someone a less-good referee (and therefore potentially not deserving of promotion) because they miss a piece of sock tape? I think no...do you disagree with that?

And how do you determine good and less-good referees?
Referees are there to administer the laws of the game. Some elements are discretionary. Some aren't.

If 2 referees are equal in every way, except one can't be bothered with a mandatory part of the LOTG and the other can be, then by definition the latter deserves the higher score. Do you disagree?

Similarly, given it's only a minor part of the score other aspects - such as match control - are given a higher weighting.

Again, I find it peculiar that you don't think applying the LOTG should be relevant to an assessment.