In his case, the process seems to be working and hopefully the assessment day can pick up on those who they think can deal with quick promotions.
Frustrating news regarding promotion
- Thread starter Gio
- Start date
- Status
This is, kind of, mitigated by a minimum criteria of 10 games and 4 observations.
True, though the Referee I was referring to, was solely promoted as a result of the assessment day & would not have achieved his 10 middles or 4 observations by this time.
Do we know this for a fact?
Level 4s start in late July with Preliminary FA Cup and some step 5 leagues fire up then to. It's possible that they had up to 3 middles a month and in reality could easily have achieved the 10 games by November before the bad weather hit and easily had 4 observations in that time too.
Obviously experiences will vary around the country with number of appointments, but unless we know facts or the persons promotion we should assume the FA adhere to it.
No, not definitely known as a fact and I am talking about a L2B to L2A in 2023/24, though the season for them only started a week or 2 later in August & in hindsight would have achieved the Observations because in 2023/24 is when 100% of games were observed.
… so yes, we should assume the FA adhered to their policy.
The FA typify today's woke corporate culture. No surprise they jumped at the opportunity to use the first development module to reinforce their indoctrination. I'm pretty tired of wading through that stuff as the organisation I work for also subjects us to the same material at every opportunity. Some of the slides in the September Module were genuinely debatable and/or concerning, but we're forced to tick every box.
I'm somewhat conscious of not getting any younger. Ironically, I fear the Assessment Day opens the door for the FA to positively discriminate.
I'm somewhat conscious of not getting any younger. Ironically, I fear the Assessment Day opens the door for the FA to positively discriminate.
Ingredients for Promotion
a. Luck. The games have to be challenging, but not carnage. They must not be easy. That 'rogue observer' must be avoided (There aren't many of them)
b. You need to make the best of that luck (MERIT)
The latter can't be achieved without the former, but most of us wouldn't achieve the latter even if repeatedly presented with the former. Hence the misunderstanding regarding the element of luck
I had the luck in my first L4 season, but narrowly short on nous. Last season I learned the difference between what a game looks like from my perspective compared to that of an onlooker (observer)
This season was over by week one. Observer on a game a trainee ref could've handled. I found that very needling TBH, but I've taken some solace by refereeing well since then!
a. Luck. The games have to be challenging, but not carnage. They must not be easy. That 'rogue observer' must be avoided (There aren't many of them)
b. You need to make the best of that luck (MERIT)
The latter can't be achieved without the former, but most of us wouldn't achieve the latter even if repeatedly presented with the former. Hence the misunderstanding regarding the element of luck
I had the luck in my first L4 season, but narrowly short on nous. Last season I learned the difference between what a game looks like from my perspective compared to that of an onlooker (observer)
This season was over by week one. Observer on a game a trainee ref could've handled. I found that very needling TBH, but I've taken some solace by refereeing well since then!
Last edited:
From the feedback I’ve received from Referees, overall, they think the Assessment Day is a good thing, so I would like to think it doesn’t discriminate & all you anyone can do is there best in games & that looks like what you’ve been doing.
Last edited:
I have no doubt the FA positively discriminate, whether that's their conscious intention or not
They openly do so in terms of offering the introductory course for free to minority groups, whereas I had to pay £160 for my Caucasian son
That's discrimination
In terms of promotion selection, I see the assessment day as unnecessary because 5 observations, countless club marks and the new learning modules and LOTG tests should suffice. Why do they need to clap eyes on us? That said, maybe the offer of promotion to any candidate should be subject to immediately passing the fitness test (or the offer of promotion is withdrawn if the test is failed and offered to someone else)
TBH, if I was a selector and there was a tie breaker between someone in their 50's and a younger model, who would I select? It is what it is. As an older white heterosexual male not belonging to any ethnic or religious minority group, I won't be getting any favours. That's the world we unfortunately live in
Though I was talking about an Assessment Day, which is for all those get accepted whatever the colour of their skin or gender etc. As to Referees courses there are also significant discounts if not free for women. A difficult one - on one hand perhaps discrimination but on the other, perhaps the only way to get an improvement in numbers of those groups highlighted. As to favours, I don’t think anyone want them (though they would accept), just to be treated fairly.
I don't wish to over-egg my point. We live in a world that brain washes everyone into thinking it's somebody else's fault if we don't get what we want, so paradoxically, I'm falling into that trap! The world is going woke mad though and it all gets on my tits!
They're called observed-male-at-birth-chesticle-majesticles now.
I don't wish to discuss my 'man boobs'
Anyway, my mantra (if I was an important person involved in football governance) would be
Fix the cavernous divide between referees and the wider football community. The two sides really don't like one another! To do so, subjective aspects of VAR would need binning off. My assertion that everyone should be treated equally (no discrimination whatsoever) is quite a bit lower in the pecking order
Last edited:
There is no doubt about it - that is discrimination based on a protected characteristic (not just 'perhaps') and can only be legal if the positive action provisions in the Equality Act can be applied.
I would say CFAs can 'reasonably think' that participation in refereeing by women is disproportionately low, depending on the facts in their area, but certainly in my area I would consider this to be the case based on the number of women's and girls' matches that have to be officiated by men.
Reducing the cost of the course for women could be regarded as a 'proportionate means' to encourage participation, but a court (if a case ever went there) would test whether that means outweighed any discriminatory effects, was proportionate to the degree of under-participation or whether alternative non-discriminatory means could have been used.
It is also possible that the Equality Act's 'recruitment and promotion' provisions can apply to certain decisions of the FA and CFAs, for which positive action allowances are more restrictive and only allow the positive action as a 'tie-breaker' in specific individual cases and not as a general policy.
I think overall you are correct in what you say - positive discrimination is allowable especially when transparent in written policies. Stats released by the FA in the last 24 hours show that currently there has been a 11% increase on this time last year and already 553 new Women Referee's this season.
Last edited:
This keeps coming up, it isn't discrimination, which is illegal, it is positive action which is perfectly legal. There's a set of criteria that employers have to consider and document when looking to use positive action, one of which is ...
evidence of the disadvantage, particular need or disproportionately low levels of participation, as appropriate, and an analysis of the causes
No one can possibly suggest that the level of participation of females or ethnic minorities is not disproportionately low. Females make up 51% of the population in England but just 8% of referees are female. The figures aren't too dissimilar for ethnicity. This is the same across football as a whole, not just refereeing but also playing, CFA councils and committees, league committees, etc.
If we then look at some of the other criteria ...
the specific outcomes which the employer is aiming to achieve
This is pretty clear, to increase the number of participants from underrepresented groups.
the possible action to achieve those outcomes
Again, pretty clear what this could be. Free or discounted courses, targets for number of underrepresented groups on things like CORE, ERDG, CFA Councils and Committees, etc.
I'd be very wary of accusing The FA or CFAs of discrimination without clear evidence as it could easily be seen as libellous, they will have followed and documented the government guidance to the letter so you would be on very sticky ground. The law on this if you have a lot of time to spare - https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...or-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace
evidence of the disadvantage, particular need or disproportionately low levels of participation, as appropriate, and an analysis of the causes
No one can possibly suggest that the level of participation of females or ethnic minorities is not disproportionately low. Females make up 51% of the population in England but just 8% of referees are female. The figures aren't too dissimilar for ethnicity. This is the same across football as a whole, not just refereeing but also playing, CFA councils and committees, league committees, etc.
If we then look at some of the other criteria ...
the specific outcomes which the employer is aiming to achieve
This is pretty clear, to increase the number of participants from underrepresented groups.
the possible action to achieve those outcomes
Again, pretty clear what this could be. Free or discounted courses, targets for number of underrepresented groups on things like CORE, ERDG, CFA Councils and Committees, etc.
I'd be very wary of accusing The FA or CFAs of discrimination without clear evidence as it could easily be seen as libellous, they will have followed and documented the government guidance to the letter so you would be on very sticky ground. The law on this if you have a lot of time to spare - https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...or-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace
- Status