failed by a fraction!
- Thread starter Kent Ref
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
No. The line is drawn. If they let your mate go at 70.98. What about the referee a 70.97?
And as rusty says this is the minimum criteria. Many of the referees taken exceed this mark and it's entirely possibly to meet the criteria and not be promoted.
The advice I would give to your friend is to read over all his reports again, digest the development points, reaffirm their strengths and take this learning into next season.
And as rusty says this is the minimum criteria. Many of the referees taken exceed this mark and it's entirely possibly to meet the criteria and not be promoted.
The advice I would give to your friend is to read over all his reports again, digest the development points, reaffirm their strengths and take this learning into next season.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
This season, I believe around 70 of the 240 who met ALL the criteria were not taken. And the “pass” mark has now been raised from 71 to 71.5 for the coming season.
Whilst it is now somewhat easier than previously to get from 7 to 5, getting to 4 is becoming increasingly competitive and challenging… which can only be a good thing for overall refereeing standards
Whilst it is now somewhat easier than previously to get from 7 to 5, getting to 4 is becoming increasingly competitive and challenging… which can only be a good thing for overall refereeing standards
This is more complex than i thought it was.
30% of those passed failed to get a position. That's hard.
Why has the mark been lifted by 0.5? Will this filter out a lot more candidates?
Is marking by observers still very subjective?
It would be interesting to see 6 observers mark the same game and see if scores are the same, or VERY similar.
The way my mate explained it to me if you ref an "easy" game where everybody behaves you get marked down. Is that fair? He thinks that partly cost him as before his last 2 games he was scoring well. Both of those games were cardless.
30% of those passed failed to get a position. That's hard.
Why has the mark been lifted by 0.5? Will this filter out a lot more candidates?
Is marking by observers still very subjective?
It would be interesting to see 6 observers mark the same game and see if scores are the same, or VERY similar.
The way my mate explained it to me if you ref an "easy" game where everybody behaves you get marked down. Is that fair? He thinks that partly cost him as before his last 2 games he was scoring well. Both of those games were cardless.
There will always be an element of some of this.
It is true the existing report is weighed and higher weighting is given to section 1 and 2 which includes Match changing situations and discipline. That said there is still opportunities for decent marks to be had in those games! An example I watched a L4 referee have an excellent game with no MCS and no reward for the 2 cautions he had as they were standard. What he did was all the other bits very very well and his score reflected that. It was significantly over your mates average and by more than 2 marks. It is not an excuse to say well I had no MCS or cards
A lot is being done to align observer expectations but yes you will always get variance.
The reports are changing this year to change the weighting away from match events (not for 5-4s granted) but this should weed out those that rely on things happening to inflate their marks.
A lot of referees think getting to L4 is a formality. Far from it. The FA are determined to raise the standard of officiating and the competition is tough. There are only so many places so you have to be able to stand out to get it.
And don't forget the CPD that is offered helps a few recover some marks. And I guess those who consistantly don't do it will be weeded out over time too..
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
I observe Level 3/Level 4/Level 5 to 4 (last season I observed seven at 5 to 4), and agree with the above comments from @JamesL.
In April this year, I observed a Level 4 referee in a game which had no cards, no Match Changing Situations, nothing out of the ordinary; the referee was proactive, clearly in charge, in tune with the players' attitude to the game, and adapted their management style to bring the game to a safe conclusion. The mark awarded was closer to 73.00 than 72.50.
When observing at 5 to 4, we are looking for potential in that official which would allow them to operate in semi-professional football, stepping away from grass roots.
Observer reports are reviewed regularly, and appeals are available in prescribed circumstances. All Observers at Steps 3-6 are currently completing training in the use of the revised system, including an observation of a game watched online, a Laws examination, and mandatory attendance at a training event. Referees at Level 3 and 4 are seeing the same presentation as the Observers, as it is important that "the same hymn sheet is used".
A similar exercise two seasons ago was interesting, as the marks produced by over 200 Observers from an online match observation produced a broadly similar picture/mark in the great majority of cases. Those whose marks were significantly higher or lower than the core group's marks were given guidance and ongoing support.
At 5 to 4, the referee needs to meet all the criteria, as @JamesL has mentioned above. The details of those who do so are then sent by the County FA to The FA for consideration. Not all are accepted, as issues such as geography (how many needed in the area), Observer marks, administration, number of referees moving from Level 3 to Level 4 in the area, etc., are all considered.
It's a big step for a referee, and needs careful review of each case by The FA. It also requires each applicant to "go the extra mile" and demonstrate to the Observer that they fully deserve the opportunity. As @RustyRef has said, 71.00 was the bare minimum and insufficient to get the referee their promotion to Level 4.
In April this year, I observed a Level 4 referee in a game which had no cards, no Match Changing Situations, nothing out of the ordinary; the referee was proactive, clearly in charge, in tune with the players' attitude to the game, and adapted their management style to bring the game to a safe conclusion. The mark awarded was closer to 73.00 than 72.50.
When observing at 5 to 4, we are looking for potential in that official which would allow them to operate in semi-professional football, stepping away from grass roots.
Observer reports are reviewed regularly, and appeals are available in prescribed circumstances. All Observers at Steps 3-6 are currently completing training in the use of the revised system, including an observation of a game watched online, a Laws examination, and mandatory attendance at a training event. Referees at Level 3 and 4 are seeing the same presentation as the Observers, as it is important that "the same hymn sheet is used".
A similar exercise two seasons ago was interesting, as the marks produced by over 200 Observers from an online match observation produced a broadly similar picture/mark in the great majority of cases. Those whose marks were significantly higher or lower than the core group's marks were given guidance and ongoing support.
At 5 to 4, the referee needs to meet all the criteria, as @JamesL has mentioned above. The details of those who do so are then sent by the County FA to The FA for consideration. Not all are accepted, as issues such as geography (how many needed in the area), Observer marks, administration, number of referees moving from Level 3 to Level 4 in the area, etc., are all considered.
It's a big step for a referee, and needs careful review of each case by The FA. It also requires each applicant to "go the extra mile" and demonstrate to the Observer that they fully deserve the opportunity. As @RustyRef has said, 71.00 was the bare minimum and insufficient to get the referee their promotion to Level 4.
Exactly this!
It irritates me when people moan about no MCS or cards. There's so much within our control that can bump up marks without relying on cards and MCS.
Over my 4 observations last season I had 3 MCS. 2 of these were simple decisions that earned me no extra credit. I got promoted.
With the change in emphasis this season this will make it even more crucial to focus on what we can control rather than wait and hope for a silly tackle!
And it has recently become known to me that at least a few either missed on promotion or demoted for not fulfilling CPD requirements - their average performance marks on the FoP were good/very good. They can only have themselves to blame.
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Just curious. What is MCS?
With the latest online match I understand that the range of marks from Observers varied from 69ish to 73ish. So a variation of 4 which is too much, whereby I would say 69 was too low & 73 too high. A mark of around 71 would probably have been appropriate. So a pendulum swing of 2 for both the lower and higher markers & following on from the recent face to face meetings across the country, whereby I think very many quickly grasped the new form, things will generally be in the right place by the time the new season starts.
Match Changing Situation
Match changing situations..
They are doing away with it this season though and returning to KMI (key match incident)
Someone said to me to think about being observed as a job interview. Averaging 71 is the equivalent of answering their questions but not also selling yourself. You might get lucky and still get the job, but there is a very good chance that someone will also answer their questions but also clearly demonstrate what they will bring to the job, in which case they are more likely to get it.
Although this is something of a moot point as your mate didn’t get the minimum mark, which is the equivalent of not answering at least one of the interview questions correctly. Out of interest, if someone got 70.98 in an exam where the pass rate is 71 would you expect them to be passed? Say a GCSE or A Level? I do exams for work, whether professional qualifications or regulatory requirements such as IT Security, anti-bribery, anti money-laundering, anti-slavery, etc, and if I don’t get the pass rate I am marked as failed and have to do them again.
Taking an academic exam is somewhat different to be observed as a referee. As you say "you're comparing oranges and apples". If the referees sat down and took a refereeing exam your point would make total sense.
Being observed is a human science, marking an exam is not.
As stated observers are not consistent in marking. "Back in the day" there was a certain amount of discretion involved in promotions.
There has to be some humanity. All we seem to be able to rely on is the FA's agenda.
Marking exams isn't necessarily an exact science, certainly not where written responses are required. In those cases the examiners are looking for an understand of the subject, which is pretty much identical to what a refereeing observer is looking for.
If they were to promote someone who was 0.02 shot of the minimum observation mark where would they draw the line? What happens if someone is promoted on 70.98 but someone in another region who averaged 71.5 isn't promoted? On the same basis should they promote someone who is 20 metres short on the fitness test? There's no agenda, a minimum requirement is exactly that, a minimum requirement.
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Certain criteria have to be met by those seeking promotion.
Had your mate averaged 71.02, they would almost certainly have failed to gain promotion.
All the necessary advice has been offered here, so they can use that to go again.
Failing a fitness test is very clear - you either pass or you don't. That's totally right and fair.
But observers are where the problem lies as reports are written on DIFFERING opinions. I am sure observers are more lilkely to be singing from the same hymn sheet now comapred to when i went through the sytem when the inconsistency among observers was ridiculous. Often observer reports contradicted each other and as a referee you wouldn't know what to take as advice or bullshit.
I accept my mate was unlikely to have made it with even 71 points.
Somebody said the scored is being raised this season. Is this just to cull more candidates more quickly or will an extra 0..5 make a huge difference?
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
An extra 0.5 will make a very material difference. It’s not designed to ‘cull’ more candidates but is a reflection of growing competition for places at Level 4 and a desire for those reaching that level to genuinely hit the ground running and ideally have the potential to progress to Level 3 and beyond