3rd Assessment (5-4)

[frank_ref]

Won't play the numbers guessing game this time, just posting for information in the hope there's something useful in there for someone.

Was a 74 and a fairly flawless game. I guess that's about the maximum they're giving round these parts. I won't mind that one bit if I get it every time though.

 

[Monotone Whistle]

Still a decent mark, and I guess you're now well above the required average so you can have an average game and not be too affected?

Interestingly, I was always trained to shout "Play on advantage" rather than the other way round as it's written in your assessment, so who knows?

I got a 79 in my last assessment, but it was waaaay worse than the one I got 74 in, so the way I see it, as long as I get over 73 each time, I'm happy. I guess the assessors can be as inconsistent as the referee.

 

[frank_ref]

79? I want your assessors! Ones round here aren't allowed to go anywhere near that. I bet if they went above 76 they'd get marked down.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

This isn't a flawless assessment. You have a development remark for inappropriately penalising handball. You have another for the position you adopted when supervising the injury. There's also another regarding signalling of an IDFK. Finally there is no mention of you speaking to the player offending or offended against when you have played advantage. if you had done these things, you may have squeezed an extra couple of marks out of what appears to be a fairly tame game (one caution and a couple of rebukes).

This also appears to be a cut and paste assessment looking at the tabulation and inconsistent formatting.

 

[frank_ref]

Number one, I'm pretty sure I said "fairly flawless"; and number two, I'm pretty sure that was in reference to the game, not the assessment (hence the word "game").

What's your bee, Brian? As in bonnet. Talking about tabs and formatting...there's a whiff of repressed anger in this. But we're grown fellas; you can be direct with me.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Number one, I'm pretty sure I said "fairly flawless"; and number two, I'm pretty sure that was in reference to the game, not the assessment (hence the word "game").

What's your bee, Brian? As in bonnet. Talking about tabs and formatting...there's a whiff of repressed anger this. But we're grown fellas; you can be direct with me.

Gee thanks Frank silly me taking two parts of a post and putting them together to make a point. Sorry about that. I'll keep things simple for you next time.

Put simply Frank I think you could have done better and could have been cruising towards the final review board with a grin on your face. Also the almost total lack of reference to match incidents (4 timed examples?) and formatting indicates that your assessor couldn't be that bothered about providing you with a report that was actually about your game rather than using generic throwaway assessor fillers comments.

No anger, just disappointment Frank, just disappointment.

 

[frank_ref]

What are you disappointed in exactly Brian?

And are you sure you're not angry about something? Phrases like "I'll keep things simple for you next time" give me reason to doubt. Do you see how that might be construed as 'passive aggressive'?

 

[Padfoot]

Maybe what Brian is disappointed about is the fairly basic mistakes that were made that have cost you some marks?

Or maybe just the negative attitude displayed towards someone trying to offer you advice?

If you don't want people's comments then don't post your assessments up?

 

[SM]

Come on guys, play nice. I'm old and need my sleep after my horlicks not forum users bickering.

Frank you asked for an opinion. Brian has provided one on your performance (as written) and what you could have done better (couple of little but important things), but he also noted the assessor as being handy with ctrl+C, ctrl+v in providing you an otherwise lazy report which lacks examples of match incidents. SM's summation services! Invoice pending.

Man alive, why am I doing this, I should be hoclicksed up and ready for bed!

 

[Russell Jones]

Nice assessment Frank, sounds like you handled the game really well.

As Brian has mentioned, avoiding the 1 or 2 development points might well have improved the mark. Most obvious example is the IFK signal which would have been picked up in a 7 to 6 assessment and so may well have cost you the 2.5 marks for the potential 4 in that section coming back to a 3.5. Also worth checking which of the desired L4 competencies aren't mentioned in the report as demonstrating a few more of them might tweak it up yet further. You're certainly right that it's getting harder to achieve a really high score ... but still worth leaving no stone unturned to do so

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Maybe what Brian is disappointed about is the fairly basic mistakes that were made that have cost you some marks?

Or maybe just the negative attitude displayed towards someone trying to offer you advice?

If you don't want people's comments then don't post your assessments up?

Exactly. I get disappointed when people who obviously have a good level of ability then make basic mistakes. Also not keen on feedback not being accepted as the gift it is intended to be.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Nice assessment Frank, sounds like you handled the game really well.

As Brian has mentioned, avoiding the 1 or 2 development points might well have improved the mark. Most obvious example is the IFK signal which would have been picked up in a 7 to 6 assessment and so may well have cost you the 2.5 marks for the potential 4 in that section coming back to a 3.5. Also worth checking which of the desired L4 competencies aren't mentioned in the report as demonstrating a few more of them might tweak it up yet further. You're certainly right that it's getting harder to achieve a really high score ... but still worth leaving no stone unturned to do so

Exactly. Don't throw away marks on cheap things like an IDFK signal. It is little things like this that rankle with assessors at the next level. It makes them question if the person has been rushed to L4 without a proper ground ing or experience in refereeing. As alluded to in the comment about advantage, there are so many more marks which could have been gained but weren't.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Come on guys, play nice. I'm old and need my sleep after my horlicks not forum users bickering.

Frank you asked for an opinion. Brian has provided one on your performance (as written) and what you could have done better (couple of little but important things), but he also noted the assessor as being handy with ctrl+C, ctrl+v in providing you an otherwise lazy report which lacks examples of match incidents. SM's summation services! Invoice pending.

Man alive, why am I doing this, I should be hoclicksed up and ready for bed!

Won't be paid by me as that's what I said already. Is that the Welsh name for Horlicks?

 

[Monotone Whistle]

The important thing to consider here is what the expectation of a good mark is. On my first assessment, I was a bit annoyed to get a 74, but having now spoken with 7 or 8 of my promotion colleagues in Essex, I'm now of the opinion that this was a decent mark in the scheme of things.

I don't know about your area, but I'm finding a number of my fellow referees are below the required score at the moment and that indicates how hard it is to consistently score over 73 - remember 70 is the "normal" score - so be happy that even with a few errors you made a 74.

I don't know if I'm reading this wrong (and I was similar to this after my first assessment), but it reads like you expect to score higher than 74 on a consistent basis. I'd look at it the other way and be happy that you are maintaining an average above where you need to be. There are no prizes or specific benefits to scoring an average of 80 or an average of 73, the end result is the same.

 

[frank_ref]

Appreciate your comments, SM, and hate to think any words here might have disturbed your sleep.

Can I have a point for refraining from writing last night, thinking I wanted to support your zeds?

So...

I was a bit puzzled as to why people thought I was responding negatively. I thought, oh, maybe it's one of those things where people aren't reading my words in the same way I'm typing them. Pretty likely: I knew this girl once and the way she'd read out her ex's texts to me - all venomous and bitter and stuff - were far from how I was reading them; they seemed pretty harmless and straightforward to me. Definitely made me think about trying to be more clear in the virtual world. Or just saying things face to face, if there was a risk of misunderstanding.

Anyways, I digress: point being I looked back and realised I'd misread something in Brian's first post - thought his questioning the veracity of the document was an accusation of doctoring (I had changed a little, but only to anonymise) - and responded/reacted to that. So I apologise for that misunderstanding, and for reading something into his comment that probably wasn't there (ie, thinking he was trying to bring me down a peg or two, because he viewed me as big-headed or something).

It's perhaps also worth pointing out that I explicitly said:

I'm just posting for information in the hope there's something useful in there for someone.

So it's kind of interesting that SM would respond by saying:

Frank you asked for an opinion. Brian has provided one.

Does that make sense? Seems like we were talking at cross purposes somewhat. If I'd asked for feedback, okay. But I didn't. So that's perhaps another reason why it felt a bit weird to get such a response.

Just for the record: I'm perfectly clear that not holding my arm aloft for IDFKs was a mistake. It's just something I haven't generally bothered doing (unless within scoring distance), as it seems a bit superfluous on a grassroots game. But it's a habit I know I need to get into, and will. I did realise it at the time, and rectified it during the game, discussed it with the assessor, and moved on, full in the knowledge that I'd better get it right next time.

Reminding me again here was, perhaps, a little bit unnecessary. I know you saw your "feedback as a gift" - but you know how it is when advice is neither asked for, nor required, nor, dare I say it, presented in the most skilful way. I know you've read your 'Men Are From Mars', Brian. It's just like that.

Anyways, hopefully that makes sense. Perhaps a bit open for a forum populated by British football referees; if so, blame it on cultural differences, and a still-developing mind. I likes a bit of communication. It's fun.

Final thing: I am interested in what a couple of you had to say about the assessment being "a cut-and-paste job" and "lazy assessing". I hadn't considered that; I just thought he was bad at using a computer. But as assessors you've the inside knowledge, and I bow to that.

PS I am very happy to score 74, and will take that all day long. Only reason I'd like more would be to take the pressure off later assessments, give a bit of breathing room in case I drop a cahone. I mean, hopefully I won't, but seeing as it happens to the boys at the very top of the game it's bound to happen to me sooner or later. Fingers crossed it's on a non-assessing day!

 

[SM]

Posting on this forum and not expecting an opinion from others?

What you are seemingly missing @frank_ref was that my post only sought to highlight the conclusion you have come to in your own post above. That you misinterpreted what Brian had said. Perhaps I meandered too much in delivery.

As I have no real opinion on the content of the topic (aside from thinking "good job on the assessment" ), my interests are purely from a maintaining forum harmony point of view.

Forum harmony. I should write an ebook or something.