RefSix

4th Observation 7 to 6

Padfoot

The Enlightened One
#21
The chats weren't public chats. He was only one making a wall (wide free kicks) so as I paced him out, first occasion is just be careful with his arm coming out to block the ball (given handball, which he accepted). Second was a challenge that generally wouldn't be a chat so as I paced him out I reminded him he was on a yellow and not to draw me to him again.
But this was seen as I was continuing to give him warnings but wasn't actually the case. Trying to manage him than penalise. He didn't do anything after.
As for the corner flags, I did pre match, which is how I noticed it in first place. But I was naive to think at that level theyd go and do it. I found out half time it was because they couldn't get to them but forgot to tell me that the guy was on his way. I also forgot to double check myself. Silly error, rectified very quickly.
Nope. Not buying that.

A quiet word whilst pacing out a wall wouldn’t normally be obvious enough for an observer to make a connection with PI.....you must have done something to make it clear that he was being warned about already being on a caution.
 
#22
Nope. Not buying that.

A quiet word whilst pacing out a wall wouldn’t normally be obvious enough for an observer to make a connection with PI.....you must have done something to make it clear that he was being warned about already being on a caution.
I didn't pull him to one side. Didn't stand too long with him.
He is a very experienced ref/observer so maybe when he asked the question I was honest and said I had a chat at both times but wasn't a ticking off chat.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#28
Considering you started without corner flags, and in the observers opinion clearly missed a dismissal, it is not credible for an above standard mark.
It was 7-6, you don't treat a missed dismissal the same way as you would for higher levels. It certainly isn't covered in any of the three performance competencies unless a straight red for SFP.

Hundreds of games every week are played without corner flags, such as on 3G pitches with no holes to put them in. In this case the referee realised there was a problem, asked for it to be dealt with and started the game anyway. I would say that shows common sense, spirit of the game, etc, especially as law now states that the referee at lower levels should allow the game to commence if one or more corner flags is missing.

Observers at L7 should be coaches as much as anything, and certainly shouldn't be marking candidates down for petty things.
 

Padfoot

The Enlightened One
#29
It was 7-6, you don't treat a missed dismissal the same way as you would for higher levels. It certainly isn't covered in any of the three performance competencies unless a straight red for SFP.

Hundreds of games every week are played without corner flags, such as on 3G pitches with no holes to put them in. In this case the referee realised there was a problem, asked for it to be dealt with and started the game anyway. I would say that shows common sense, spirit of the game, etc, especially as law now states that the referee at lower levels should allow the game to commence if one or more corner flags is missing.

Observers at L7 should be coaches as much as anything, and certainly shouldn't be marking candidates down for petty things.
Disagree about the missed dismissal....part of the Application of Law criteria is for a level 7 to be able to:
Recognise when to take disciplinary action, sending off, cautioning or dealing with misconduct according to the offence

Clearly if the observer felt there had been a missed dismissal then the candidate would not be able to meet that criteria.....which is for a 7, let alone a 6.

The corner flags I would accept if the candidate said to me that they aware they were missing but wanted to get the game going etc.....but if they were unaware they were missing, for me, there is an issue over their preparation prior to KO.

Coupled with a missed dismissal that would be enough for me to mark down. These are basic skills that a 7 to 6 should have pretty much nailed if they seek promotion.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#30
Disagree about the missed dismissal....part of the Application of Law criteria is for a level 7 to be able to:
Recognise when to take disciplinary action, sending off, cautioning or dealing with misconduct according to the offence
Where are you getting that from? The PCs for 7-6 are listed below, I think you are referring to the old 2010 7-6 competencies that haven't been used since February 2015.

· Did the Referee apply law correctly at all times – paying specific attention to fouls and misconduct.


· Did the Referee demonstrate the ability to be able to distinguish challenges that were fair and foul ?


· Given the opportunity did the Referee recognise the difference between those foul challenges that were careless, reckless or made with excessive force?


· Did the Referee ensure that play was started and restarted correctly?
 
#33
· Did the Referee apply law correctly at all times – paying specific attention to fouls and misconduct.
· Given the opportunity did the Referee recognise the difference between those foul challenges that were careless, reckless or made with excessive force?
Surely these two criteria in particular would include a failure to send off? It would be incorrect applicatio nof Law no?
 
#34
On the promotion path myself from 7 to 6 nothing surprises me what one Assesor calls your strengths others call weaknesses what some call not important at this level others call important just have to go and do your best and pick the improvement points out the best you can
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#35
Surely these two criteria in particular would include a failure to send off? It would be incorrect applicatio nof Law no?
Possibly the first bullet, but if you look at the OP the observer didn't say he should have sent off the fullback, rather he asked him why he didn't. They are two different things, a good observer will ask questions that get the referee to explain his thought process. That explanation might well satisfy any doubt the observer had about something.
 

Padfoot

The Enlightened One
#36
Where are you getting that from? The PCs for 7-6 are listed below, I think you are referring to the old 2010 7-6 competencies that haven't been used since February 2015.

· Did the Referee apply law correctly at all times – paying specific attention to fouls and misconduct.


· Did the Referee demonstrate the ability to be able to distinguish challenges that were fair and foul ?


· Given the opportunity did the Referee recognise the difference between those foul challenges that were careless, reckless or made with excessive force?


· Did the Referee ensure that play was started and restarted correctly?
Did you miss the bit about them not being ‘exhaustive’? Sure it’s in the introductory paragraph to those PC?
Guidance I have been given is that we are perfectly entitled to refer to the earlier criteria if we feel, in our experience, that it is pertinent to do so.

Observers merely considering the very limited ‘new’ PC would certainly explain why so many poor candidates are achieving promotion.
 
#37
Considering you started without corner flags, and in the observers opinion clearly missed a dismissal, it is not credible for an above standard mark.
I got standard expected for application and well above for the other 2.
The overall result was above standard.
I'm guessing if I sent the guy off and the start was perfect it would have been well above standard.
 
#38
I'm marvelling that a Level 7 can have ARs appointed for a game. There are 3 Step 7 leagues around me who struggle week in, week out to get Supply League ARs out on their games.
It was a U23 development game between two semi pro teams dev squads.
The league who do the appointments have agreed to give those lower down the levels a chance as long as they can show evidence they can handle the games. We also have at least one level 5 on the line to offer advice and guidance. On this game I had two level 5s on my lines. Buzzer flags belonging to one of them too helped massively. Meant I was able to concentrate on the game too which helped my match control I think and also meant I knew my lines needed something without constantly looking at them like I would on a Sunday morning.

It's not my first time with neutrals.
It's my 3rd game in that particular league and another next week.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#39
Did you miss the bit about them not being ‘exhaustive’? Sure it’s in the introductory paragraph to those PC?
Guidance I have been given is that we are perfectly entitled to refer to the earlier criteria if we feel, in our experience, that it is pertinent to do so.

Observers merely considering the very limited ‘new’ PC would certainly explain why so many poor candidates are achieving promotion.
Well done, you've found the right document rather than the 8 year old one you originally quoted from … :) There is certainly no official guidance about referring to the 2010 document except for 5-4 observations as that still remains valid.

Regardless of the document though, marking a 7-6 candidate down for not dealing with potential PI is harsh in the extreme. Many level 4 referees find this hard to deal with after all.
 

Padfoot

The Enlightened One
#40
Well done, you've found the right document rather than the 8 year old one you originally quoted from … :) There is certainly no official guidance about referring to the 2010 document except for 5-4 observations as that still remains valid.

Regardless of the document though, marking a 7-6 candidate down for not dealing with potential PI is harsh in the extreme. Many level 4 referees find this hard to deal with after all.
I was well aware of the new PC, however as you point out there is no official stance on using, or not using, the 2010 criteria outside of the 5-4 process. My CFA are happy for us to use them if we feel it appropriate to do so.

Perhaps if those 4s had been observed a bit more rigorously they wouldn’t be finding it hard to deal with something that should have been picked up much earlier?
 
Top