…which would absolutely be the wrong thing to do imo! What’s the point of being a Referee if you don’t want to be out and about on a Saturday afternoon etc. Don’t get me wrong, there are Referees out there who pull out of games to protect their marks eg appointed an Observer they have not had before, but surely being involved in the game is the most important thing and to enjoy it as much as possible (though there will always be games that are not then enjoyable).
Frustrating news regarding promotion
- Thread starter Gio
- Start date
- Status
The benefit of an extra 6 months will also benefit you in the way that you can show that you are better than the step 7 games you are on. In my area there isn’t much difference in the quality of teams between the top of step 6 & 7 so it’s already a chance to have that quality of games.
I'm an advocate of quick progression from Level 4 upwards
It's the bit before Level 4 that needs time and experience
As I say, there's nowhere near enough movement between the Levels in the NLS
Much higher rates of reclassification are needed to accommodate the progression of other Sam Barratts of the world
FA seem to be scared of hurting people's feelings with limited reclassification. Escaping L4 has a very significant lottery element to it
Largely agree with this. Alway exceptions to the rule.
Reclassification is happening. There are very clearly setout parameters as to who gets reclassified and it does happen. The Sam Barrott's of the world have the opportunity. The recent changes to the FA CORE program i.e. how talent is identified and invited and the quite rigorous selection and retention process are designed to better identify talent. In addition to that FA Core is a pathway into ERDP for L3 FA CORE referees, those that have the ability will have greater opportunity to progress at a faster pace.
I absolutely hate reading statements like this. Mainly, I think it devalues my own, and everyone else's, achievement that has attained level 3. You are essentially saying I gained my status through luck when in actual fact I worked really hard to get myself into a position to be selected. It was not easy and it was certainly not by way of a lottery, imo.
Very rare I see referees who "escape" level 4 as not being up to the required standard. I think Ive come across one L3 in all my time who I have thought wasn't particularly great, but then what do I know, he is now a level 2 referee. I doubt that is through luck, he will have worked hard. And in my experience of level 2s they havent got their by luck or lottery either. In my experience, the old saying rings true, the cream rises to the top.
Whilst I get you are saying their could be more fluidity between the levels, Im not necessarily against that notion, it would do my own chances no harm, I think we have to be realistic and not be chucking out referees that are up to standard but not getting the rub of the green in the merit system, bearing in mind the standard expected is 70 I'd be surprised is there are any referees that have received 5 observations whose average is below that figure and there is a counter argument to say if they are performing above expected then why should they be reclassified at all.
@JamesL I think the luck thing is people mix it up with consistency. Most people can get a one off match where the stars align and they get a great score. So they then get the mentality of: if I can get that once. Why can't I get it 4/5 times.
Then when they don't. They blame it on luck. But law of averages and all that.
Then when they don't. They blame it on luck. But law of averages and all that.
That or the place to much emphasis on things happening. I hear "oh nothing happened in the game" as a reason for low mark.
Whilst there is an element that things happening in your games can elevate your mark it doesnt mean you can't get a strong mark when things don't happen.
We probably think about things differently. I view things from a statistical or mathematical perspective
Anyway, without getting into the Maths, you're misunderstanding if you think my statement devalues the achievement of those who have been promoted to Level 3. You're in a group of referees who got a run of games that had scoring potential. More importantly, you took your opportunity in those games and got promoted on merit. You must also have done OK with Club Marks
The problem is the group who don't get promoted. There'll be a group who consistently do well but frustratingly narrowly miss out on that top 5% bracket, often because of the misfortune of encountering a dead-rubber or one of the small number of deadly observers
So, in no terms whatsoever am I discrediting those who have done brilliantly well to get in that illusive top bracket, it's the good referees who are trapped for many years through no fault of their own that I'm concerned about. They are imprisoned by Level 3's who should be reclassified but are not because there isn't enough flux
Hmmm. I had a dead-runner Step 6 first game of the season. Nothing at all to work with...... very very minor dev points 72.1
I knew all the ingredients were wrong when the appointment came through as I know both sides are crap and well behaved
Season over
Second game. Competitive Step 5. 3rd v 5th
Result. Ingredients for tick boxes to get ticked
Same Referee, same performance as the first game, just much much more to work with and much more challenging 72.9
Season still over
Perhaps it was the language used. To read "it's a lottery" to me devalues the work and effort put in.
FWIW I didn't have a run of great games.
I had 1 game which a lot happened and I don't think the mark I got reflected the performance nor the debrief. My highest score came in a 6-0 no cards game. My lowest score also came in a dead rubber. What I do is I always make sure I try to deliver in the other competencies so I'm not relying on events. Relying on events is a lottery because well we get them wrong sometimes and that can have the opposite effect you are looking for.
I take your point about good refs competing at the top and steps have been taken to address this with the assessment days.
So the wrong use of words on my behalf. In no way was I detracting from those who got in that 5% bracket. Apologies for that
Just bemoaning the ones who are up there but keep missing out. I'm not sure I'm one of them TBH. I didn't have a great season last year although I feel more experienced as a result and I'm very much back on form now. I'm enthused by lying 7/75 on Club Marks (albeit mid-table Observers_
It's a certain sort of game that kills you. That first game of mine this season was awful. My newly qualified 15 year old son could have refereed it. My heart was sinking as full-time approached as I knew I'd been a spectator.
However, as you indicated, you definitely do not need a load of cards and KMS's to score well. Indeed, I only had two cautions for my 72.9
I've learned that an action packed chaotic game is just as likely to result in a bad score than a good one. It all depends on cause and effect. Did the Ref contribute to the mayhem or did the Referee contain mayhem that was not of his making? Both games have similarities, but are worlds apart in terms of the Ref's score
Oh absolutely this. My first observation of the season was on a bog-standard 2-0 home win with barely 10 free-kicks, no KMI, no cautions even on the radar. A competent “standard expected” across the board, so it’s about taking the opportunities to eke out that extra .5 on something. Speak to that offender and offended against after the advantage you somehow find, a loud “thanks fella, that’s enough” after the club lino gives that first offside to a grumble, nailing subs (even rolling ones) procedure 100% perfectly, put that full gas sprint in, move about a bit at a set piece and point at something randomly like you’re watching that, etc etc. Look in control.
Same. There's one L3 who I regularly end up. Repeatedly poor. Not good enough. I won't mention the gender but it does very much make you wonder. Every other Level 3 I've met has been competent, obviously with some having much better games than others, but nothing that would have me seriously questioning their promoted status.
Nearly forgot... @RefereeX gave me nightmares.... Calamitous. Useless. Ran two marathons in 90 minutes though so 4x8.5 for Positioning and Movement
Last edited:
I don’t think the FA are scared of hurting anyone - there are many who have been reclassified or transferred to a specialist AR & largely dictated by the merit tables, which in one sense don’t lie!! There are many Referees who have been demoted despite being good enough, but they are where they are in the merit tables and some of those try even harder and successfully to get back to where they once were & credit to them for that.
There's definitely an element of luck in getting promoted at levels where there are merit tables, good luck alone won't get a referee promoted, but bad luck can stop them. There's less jeopardy these days in terms of which observer you get with the marking system compared to how it used to be previously where a given observer's average mark could be anything between 65 and 80. But you still have some observers who are more or less likely to give the benefit of the doubt when they think they have seen something but aren't 100%, and if you keep getting one sided games where nothing happens you are going to be at a disadvantage.
The season before I got promoted to L3 my marks were 80,78,74,76,80 and 80, that wasn't good enough to get me in the top 4. The 74 was the highest mark that observer had given out that season. The following season I had 80,84,82,79,79 and 80 and finished top. I had red cards in 5 of those 6 games, with the one I got 84 in seeing 4 players sent off, so I have to concede that I'd been lucky in that respect. I also finished top on club marks that season, despite having averaged more than 1 red card per step 5 game.
The season before I got promoted to L3 my marks were 80,78,74,76,80 and 80, that wasn't good enough to get me in the top 4. The 74 was the highest mark that observer had given out that season. The following season I had 80,84,82,79,79 and 80 and finished top. I had red cards in 5 of those 6 games, with the one I got 84 in seeing 4 players sent off, so I have to concede that I'd been lucky in that respect. I also finished top on club marks that season, despite having averaged more than 1 red card per step 5 game.
And your last sentence demonstrates that Club Secretary’s want Referees to do the right thing and not ignore a red card incident (though their Managers may think differently, though some Managers undertake the marking).
Indeed, they are generally OK and fair if they clearly saw what had happened. Was the season before, but I sent 3 of the home teams players off, one literally begged me to give him a second caution loudly enough for everyone to hear, one was a sub who walked 5 yards onto the pitch before decking an opponent, and the third called my AR a cheating c****, right in from of the stand where the club officials sit.
When we left the changing room the club owner was sat behind a table interviewing the players one by one. He phoned me later that evening to apologise, tell me they'd sacked the 2nd and 3rd players to be sent off, and told me he'd be giving me top marks. I went back there a lot as an observer, and he always recalled that game and said that he would have clobbered me on the mark had I not sent them off.
Runner Ref
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm, to a point. I think this comes down to which level the clubs are.
My supply league, as it was, was on the lower end of the step chart. So the secretary was also the manager, left back and put the nets up. You also had to quite often have to wait for the game before you to finish before the game could get on.
Whereas other supply leagues around the country had private grounds and a secretary who was just that.
The ‘full time’ secretaries tended to mark you based on how you did. The manager, left back, secretary would generally mark on their emotions, similar to a Sunday league manager.
As you move up the ranks and get proper secretaries, their marks will generally be honest and genuine.
I know you're joking, but genuinely I make no secret of the fact I think I was very fortunate to get my promotion when I did. I must have just about scraped an invite to an assessment day (which without my last planned observation being postponed I may have either been more comfortable or may have missed out) and then at the assessment day, passing the fitness test proved to be half the battle (although once again, passing the fitness test itself is no matter of luck, but I was a little shocked by the number of candidates that failed it).
If you looked at my observation marks immediately after my promotion also, you would think that I am someone who has been found out and is heading back towards reclassification, but fortunately you get half a season (or a season, depending) grace and this season has started a lot more positive.
There are definitely elements of luck, but you still need to be good enough also. There are certain things you can control. Refereeing isn't all about running, and sometimes I run unnecessarily, but in 4 assessments since getting my L3, I've been marked 8.0 for section 4.1 (work rate / movement) 3 times. The other time was the day after my best mate's wedding where I was best man and in all honesty I probably shouldn't have done the game, but I missed the closed date deadline and didn't want to come off it.
I'm inclined to think that if you're good enough, you'll get there eventually, but it may take two identically good referees a very different amount of time due to a little bit of luck for one where the other misses out. I think this assessment day idea is a great initiative which will even out that luck element as much as possible, as there is no perfect system which doesn't leave a little bit to luck.
I think your final para is a fair reflection, though with regard the assessment day, whilst I think it is a good initiative, there is the distinct possibility (and I am aware of 1 occasion when it’s happened), when a Referee can be promoted mid season to a higher level having only just been promoted to a level at the beginning of the season. So, although they may be good enough, they are missing out on experience of 1 level before being promoted to the next and the consequences that can have.
I don't disagree, but then to offer an opposing view, a good friend of mine was promoted to L3 last season having only achieved 5-4 at the end of the 22/23 season (so effectively after half a season at L4) and his observations and club marks since achieving his L3 have been very, very good. I would be shocked if he doesn't go on to make the national list or better in the next 5 years or so, so maybe he just is an example of the cream rising.
- Status