2x standard 1 x above 1 x below 6-5

[forest96]

That's exact;y what I am saying.......

And exactly what I have done for every observation I have undertaken with the new scheme.......and only had 1 appeal, which didn't go well for the candidate.


It is only the match assessor that can decide whether a match comes into the category of ‘challenging’ or ‘very challenging’. The assessor must decide whether the accumulation of:

• match incidents,
• the nature and frequency of challenges made by players,
• number of cautions and dismissals,
• the behaviour of the players and officials to each other and to the match officials,

or any other factors amounts to a challenging or very challenging match for the referee. This will make the match something that is ‘out of the ordinary’ compared to other matches. If the referee demonstrates both standard and refinement competencies in his performance in any of the Competency Sections then with match evidence linked to those competencies, the assessor can justify a mark of Above Standard or Well Above Standard.

The bit in bold clearly states that if a match is "out of the ordinary" i.e. challenging/very challenging, and the referee demonstrates both standard & refinement competencies, then a mark of Above or Well Above can be justified.
This carries with it the obvious expectation that Above or Well Above cannot be justified if a match is not "challenging/very challenging".

Out of interest Padfoot, where have you got that handbook from? I observe at county level and haven't received anything like the above quote. Not saying you're wrong, just I haven't been given that. Very similar wording was in the old supply league observer handbook, but that related to marking 8.5 or above.

I believe it should be possible (and I have in the past) to mark a candidate 'above standard' on a normal game, primarily for the reasons laid out by rustyref above. That being said, I've watched 7 candidates this season (4 x 7-6s and 3 x 6-5s) and I am yet to mark any 'above standard'!

 

[RustyRef]

That's exact;y what I am saying.......

And exactly what I have done for every observation I have undertaken with the new scheme.......and only had 1 appeal, which didn't go well for the candidate.


It is only the match assessor that can decide whether a match comes into the category of ‘challenging’ or ‘very challenging’. The assessor must decide whether the accumulation of:

• match incidents,
• the nature and frequency of challenges made by players,
• number of cautions and dismissals,
• the behaviour of the players and officials to each other and to the match officials,

or any other factors amounts to a challenging or very challenging match for the referee. This will make the match something that is ‘out of the ordinary’ compared to other matches. If the referee demonstrates both standard and refinement competencies in his performance in any of the Competency Sections then with match evidence linked to those competencies, the assessor can justify a mark of Above Standard or Well Above Standard.

The bit in bold clearly states that if a match is "out of the ordinary" i.e. challenging/very challenging, and the referee demonstrates both standard & refinement competencies, then a mark of Above or Well Above can be justified.
This carries with it the obvious expectation that Above or Well Above cannot be justified if a match is not "challenging/very challenging".

Where are you getting that from, as it isn't in the aide memoire documents published by the FA?

 

[Padfoot]

Can't remember exactly where it came from, was emailed out though.

Pretty much word for word in the latest Level 2, 3 & 4 handbook, except it refers to a mark of 8.5 or above......which can be viewed as an equivalent to Above/Well Above standard mark at County level observations.

The principle is clearly intended that "above" standard marks should not be issued in other than "challenging / very challenging" matches, whether that is Supply league or County observations.

 

[RustyRef]

Can't remember exactly where it came from, was emailed out though.

Pretty much word for word in the latest Level 2, 3 & 4 handbook, except it refers to a mark of 8.5 or above......which can be viewed as an equivalent to Above/Well Above standard mark at County level observations.

The principle is clearly intended that "above" standard marks should not be issued in other than "challenging / very challenging" matches, whether that is Supply league or County observations.

I would hazard a guess that it was written by your county FA, based on the Supply League document. If it is an FA document I certainly can't find any record of it. The only official FA documents that I can find are those linked below (can only find them on the Devon site, but they match the ones I was sent).

https://www.devonfa.com/~/media/Cou...ree-assessor-competency-aide-memoire-7-6.ashx
https://www.devonfa.com/~/media/Cou...ree-assessor-competency-aide-memoire-6-5.ashx

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I've often read these assessment type posts and wondered if the marks are made up in the pub... No two games are ever the same and to generalise like they seem to seems very flawed. You can have the easiest game going and One tackle turns it into a bloodbath and you can have a tasty game on paper that pass without anything of note.... I'm baffled how they get into decimals on performance in a particular game! I bet if you got 20 assessors watching the same game you would get a massive breadth of 'opinion' that the result you actually got was actually a big fat guess!!!

 

[forest96]

Pretty much word for word in the latest Level 2, 3 & 4 handbook, except it refers to a mark of 8.5 or above......which can be viewed as an equivalent to Above/Well Above standard mark at County level observations.

I wouldn’t agree that 8.5 or above at supply/contrib correlates to an ‘above standard’ at county level, because they hardly ever get awarded - in fact, I’d argue that a 7.5/8 correlates more closely to an ‘above standard’, and it’s more than possible to get that in a normal game, providing you can demonstrate the necessary competencies.

 

[RustyRef]

I've often read these assessment type posts and wondered if the marks are made up in the pub... No two games are ever the same and to generalise like they seem to seems very flawed. You can have the easiest game going and One tackle turns it into a bloodbath and you can have a tasty game on paper that pass without anything of note.... I'm baffled how they get into decimals on performance in a particular game! I bet if you got 20 assessors watching the same game you would get a massive breadth of 'opinion' that the result you actually got was actually a big fat guess!!!

That's why there are set competencies that observers are looking for in referees. We have training events where multiple observers will watch the same (unlucky) referees, years ago the marks would be all over the place but now there is much more uniformity in observer marking. If watching a 5-4 candidate I'd be worried if the mark from all observers varied by more than two or three marks, and when you consider that mark is out of 100 I'd say that shows a high level of consistency.

 

[Russell Jones]

That's why there are set competencies that observers are looking for in referees. We have training events where multiple observers will watch the same (unlucky) referees, years ago the marks would be all over the place but now there is much more uniformity in observer marking. If watching a 5-4 candidate I'd be worried if the mark from all observers varied by more than two or three marks, and when you consider that mark is out of 100 I'd say that shows a high level of consistency.

I can definitely confirm that there is decent consistency in the marks given by Observers (to me at least) and that the competencies make it far easier for referees and observers alike to be on the same page. The only thing I would say Rusty is that 2 or 3 marks, whilst seeming only a slight difference, is actually enough to materially impact the eventual banding of the referee, Because whilst notionally out of 100, in reality the amounts of marks outside the range of 65 to 80 is miniscule. With a clear majority of the marks in the very tight range of 70 to 75 .....

 

[es1]

The observation scheme isn't perfect by any means but I don't think there's another system we could use that would make it better!

As with having different referees for different games (as obviously you can't ref them all) there'll be a level of inconsistency between the referee on each game but hopefully good knowledge of the LOTG and guidance in training events leads to a higher level of consistency.

The same is true for observers, each has their own personality and will view a referees performance and match difficulty differently to each other, despite the training and guidance they receive.

At the end of the day I've found it's all down to the luck of the draw and getting a good observer watching you on a good game which you perform well on in order to get an above standard mark, even at level 4. I've had, what I thought were decent games with little or no development from observers in games they described as challenging and received a 73 or 74. It also works the other way though and I've received similar marks (one from the same observer!) in easier games that I felt I hadn't performed so well in so perhaps it does even itself out!

 

[RustyRef]

I can definitely confirm that there is decent consistency in the marks given by Observers (to me at least) and that the competencies make it far easier for referees and observers alike to be on the same page. The only thing I would say Rusty is that 2 or 3 marks, whilst seeming only a slight difference, is actually enough to materially impact the eventual banding of the referee, Because whilst notionally out of 100, in reality the amounts of marks outside the range of 65 to 80 is miniscule. With a clear majority of the marks in the very tight range of 70 to 75 .....

Agree with that Russell, and I think the change to competence based marking to 7-6 and 7-5 has changed things. Before this I've given out very high and very low marks out of 100 when seeing 7-6 candidates. These days out of 100 is only used for 5-4 and above, so it is fair to assume that by the time someone has got to that level they should know at least by basics, and therefore very low marks should be rare (and very high marks are discouraged).

It does mean that referees are clumped close together, but that is probably a good thing as it has removed the ability for one "rogue" observer adversely affecting a promotion or demotion. As an example, I know of one 5-4 candidate who got 90 in his first game, then nowhere near 73 in the next 4, but he was still nominated as he averaged over 73 and as he had received 4 observations club marks cannot be looked at. I would argue that a referee who had 80% of observations at level 5 below the required standard is absolutely not ready for level 4, and strangely enough the said candidate struggled badly after he was promoted.

 

[JamesL]

Agree with that Russell, and I think the change to competence based marking to 7-6 and 7-5 has changed things. Before this I've given out very high and very low marks out of 100 when seeing 7-6 candidates. These days out of 100 is only used for 5-4 and above, so it is fair to assume that by the time someone has got to that level they should know at least by basics, and therefore very low marks should be rare (and very high marks are discouraged).

It does mean that referees are clumped close together, but that is probably a good thing as it has removed the ability for one "rogue" observer adversely affecting a promotion or demotion. As an example, I know of one 5-4 candidate who got 90 in his first game, then nowhere near 73 in the next 4, but he was still nominated as he averaged over 73 and as he had received 4 observations club marks cannot be looked at. I would argue that a referee who had 80% of observations at level 5 below the required standard is absolutely not ready for level 4, and strangely enough the said candidate struggled badly after he was promoted.

I thought that if so many observations (2?) were below the required level you couldnt get promoted iirc. In fact I am certain of it.

Sounds like the rumour mill to me though I dont doubt the principle of what you say happens.. if true sounds like county fa have nominated incorrectly.

 

[RustyRef]

I thought that if so many observations (2?) were below the required level you couldnt get promoted iirc. In fact I am certain of it.

Sounds like the rumour mill to me though I dont doubt the principle of what you say happens.. if true sounds like county fa have nominated incorrectly.

You're thinking of 7-6 and 6-5 I suspect. That requirement isn't in the 5-4 nomination criteria set by the FA, if they average 73 or over they have to be nominated.

 

[JamesL]

You're thinking of 7-6 and 6-5 I suspect. That requirement isn't in the 5-4 nomination criteria set by the FA, if they average 73 or over they have to be nominated.

I suspect you might be right.

 

[Nalbi]

I suspect you might be right.

That's exactly the case, 5-4 you get 5 observations and you need to average at least a 73% to be considered for nomination.

 

[lincs22]

I've often read these assessment type posts and wondered if the marks are made up in the pub...

No, its normally the clubhouse after the match

At L4, you tend to right the report and then assess the comments against the competencies and arrive at the mark. But as ES1 says, all observers have slightly different opinions and guide the referee in those areas for development points, unless a couple of major issues arise. Some observers are better at observing advantage, teamwork, communication, minor issues of match control. I trust we are all the same on application of law and Decision making accuracy.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

I can definitely confirm that there is decent consistency in the marks given by Observers (to me at least) and that the competencies make it far easier for referees and observers alike to be on the same page. The only thing I would say Rusty is that 2 or 3 marks, whilst seeming only a slight difference, is actually enough to materially impact the eventual banding of the referee, Because whilst notionally out of 100, in reality the amounts of marks outside the range of 65 to 80 is miniscule. With a clear majority of the marks in the very tight range of 70 to 75 .....

The reason you don't get marks outside of 65 to 80 is that a single mark of 65 is enough to relegate a L4 or totally demoralise them even if they are on a grace year. Conversely a mark of 80, because of the way the marking scheme works, indicates that the referee had a very, very good game in challenging circumstances and is enough to promote almost on its own. The definition of challenging circumstances is set out in the observer's handbook, and very few games meet the criteria.

Finally any games outside of 69 to 76 are sent for moderation by a panel who will review every section for parity against the competencies. It is rare for a report to come back unaltered after that type of review and it will push it back towards that window.

 

[Mintyref]

The reason you don't get marks outside of 65 to 80 is that a single mark of 65 is enough to relegate a L4 or totally demoralise them even if they are on a grace year. Conversely a mark of 80, because of the way the marking scheme works, indicates that the referee had a very, very good game in challenging circumstances and is enough to promote almost on its own. The definition of challenging circumstances is set out in the observer's handbook, and very few games meet the criteria.

Finally any games outside of 69 to 76 are sent for moderation by a panel who will review every section for parity against the competencies. It is rare for a report to come back unaltered after that type of review and it will push it back towards that window.

As an outsider looking in then Brian, what is the point of having such a wide range of marking options if they are not used? Such a narrow 'norm' seems to make it difficult to stand out from the crowd, every one will be there or thereabouts? Yes?

 

[Sheffields Finest]

As an outsider looking in then Brian, what is the point of having such a wide range of marking options if they are not used? Such a narrow 'norm' seems to make it difficult to stand out from the crowd, every one will be there or thereabouts? Yes?

Minty, use the door like everybody else!!

 

[lincs22]

As an outsider looking in then Brian, what is the point of having such a wide range of marking options if they are not used? Such a narrow 'norm' seems to make it difficult to stand out from the crowd, every one will be there or thereabouts? Yes?

@Mintyref - while the range may be tight, the standard of L4 referees is also tight. To get to this level, they have certain abilities.

Even with small marking criteria, the better (and weaker) referees are noticeable. The better referees tend to get the higher profile matches and the better observers. In turn they have excellent performance, so ability awards higher marks. Using the weaker referees on a known challenging match would create the referee issues, which they may not be able to handle at that stage of their career.

The cream rises and becomes L3.

 

[WAFCryan2014]

@Mintyref - while the range may be tight, the standard of L4 referees is also tight. To get to this level, they have certain abilities.

Even with small marking criteria, the better (and weaker) referees are noticeable. The better referees tend to get the higher profile matches and the better observers. In turn they have excellent performance, so ability awards higher marks. Using the weaker referees on a known challenging match would create the referee issues, which they may not be able to handle at that stage of their career.

The cream rises and becomes L3.

What would you say makes the difference from getting promoted from level 4 to 3?