The Ref Stop

5-4 observation

telboy2000

telboy2000

The man in the middle!
During the debrief the observer had said I didnt miss anything etc etc then proceeded to give me a below the standard mark for certain competencies on the report without clear explanations. Does anyone know if an appeal process exist.
 
The Ref Stop
telboy2000 said:
During the debrief the observer had said I didnt miss anything etc etc then proceeded to give me a below the standard mark for certain competencies on the report without clear explanations. Does anyone know if an appeal process exist.
Click to expand...

an appeal process will certainly exist, speak to the assessor coordinator as a first point of contact.
 
It's poor practice on the part of the Observer to not cover any development points during your verbal debrief that he intends to allude to in your written report. Your report should really have no surprises when you get to see it. Your actual mark for each competency may well be lower than you'd hoped, but again nothing that should shock you. As already stated - if you feel you've been done a disservice, take it straight to the person who arranges your observations. :cool:
 
the guidance is that if you get anything other than a 3 for anything it has to be backed up with specific commentary. This applies to getting either a 2 or a 4 (or a 1 or a 5)
 
Always difficult to prove, but you should share your concerns with the observer coordinator.
As a side issue do you agree or disagree with the comments? Is there anything in there that isn't truth?
 
It's common round here for the first point of contact to be the observer themselves. Be polite and respectful of course, but tell them you feel there's a disconnect between the mark, the positive post-match feedback and the comments/lack of development points. It might be that he can explain the issue to you, or it might be that he's made a mistake (used a previous negative report as a template and forgotten to change the mark for example) and will be happy to modify the report for you.

Of course if that doesn't resolve the inconsistencies, then I agree with the above and you can then go above his head to the coordinator or your RDO. But my understanding is that this is fairly unlikely to get you anywhere unless there are serious inconsistencies or mistakes in law, so you're always better off seeing if you can persuade the observer to change their mark first.
 
JamesL said:
As a side issue do you agree or disagree with the comments? Is there anything in there that isn't truth?
Click to expand...

Curious what has been said since it "isn't clear".

Don't they have to provide advice/solutions to any points of criticism thesedays? Just seems odd to me if that isn't the case in this one.
 
RobOda said:
Curious what has been said since it "isn't clear".

Don't they have to provide advice/solutions to any points of criticism thesedays? Just seems odd to me if that isn't the case in this one.
Click to expand...
The standard mark for each competency is a 3. If you get a 3 which is "standard expected" then the observer does not have to provide any commentary.

If you get standard expected across the board you are 10 marks short of what you need as an average mark for L4 (70).

If you get below 3, then the observer has to provide specific examples of why the mark is below.

If you get above a 3 then again they have to provide specific commentary as to why the mark was awarded.
 
There's no formal appeal process at 5-4 like there is at 4 and above. You would need to contact your observing coordinator pointing out why you are unhappy, including specifics. It has to come under one of the two categories to be considered ...

- observer is clearly incorrect in law
- the written text doesn't match the individual performance competency marks awarded

The former is unlikely to happen very often, and if that is found to be the case I would suggest the entire report would be voided as it would call into question the credibility of the observer.

The latter is now easier with the new form. If you have got a 1 or 2 in a PC and there isn't clear development advice, including advice to address the problem(s), that should be upgraded to a 3.

In my experience the biggest form of complaint is that the observer said that the referee did or didn't do something and the referee didn't agree. I would sympathise with that as I've been on the receiving end, but at the end of the day it is your word against his and the observer is trained to observe the referee so they will always take his word on matters of fact.

If you want me to have a look put the report in a PM.
 
socal lurker said:
Yeah, I've been trying to wrap my brain around that--meeting the standard means you didn't meet the standard. :wall::confused:
Click to expand...
Yep, it’s an interesting way of doing it. It’s the first season this marking system is in play for 5-4 promotion candidates and I’m sure there will be some learnings that come out of it. I don’t know what % of candidates won’t make the average this season will be and how that will compare with previous years, only time will tell!
 
socal lurker said:
Yeah, I've been trying to wrap my brain around that--meeting the standard means you didn't meet the standard. :wall::confused:
Click to expand...
Meeting the standard for L4 means being better than the bulk of L5s, so getting "standard expected" while at L5 means one is not getting notably better than L5, and therefore does not yet demonstrate worthiness (FLOABW) of L4.
 
Nij said:
Meeting the standard for L4 means being better than the bulk of L5s, so getting "standard expected" while at L5 means one is not getting notably better than L5, and therefore does not yet demonstrate worthiness (FLOABW) of L4.
Click to expand...
That’s true, however it was such a radical change in the way in which the marking for promotion was done that it’s taken time to bed in. Personally, with 3 observations marked and a 4th score due in the next day or so, I’ve not had any issues with the marking and all of mine have been a fair reflection on the performance I gave. Incidentally, the highest mark I’ve had to date was in a game that finished 9-0!
 
I understood that you were marked against competencies of next level. E. G. Standard expected is standard expected at level 4
 
Kes said:
Which is what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. :wall:
Click to expand...

I don’t see it as being ridiculous.

Going from 5-4 is the biggest single jump a referee will make in their career. It’s moving from county FA to national FA, from recreational football to semi pro, from free entry games to ones where spectators pay their hard earned money to come and watch.

It’s clear that if you get a 3 across the board you won’t get promoted. Therefore you need to find at least 50% of the competencies that you do better than that (can be less if you are getting 5’s in areas but I’ve not had one in 3 observations yet). I’d say the bar is now higher to reach the standard than it was before, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, hopefully it will cut down on the number of referees coming back down to 5 after just 2 seasons because they are out of their depth.
 
JamesL said:
I understood that you were marked against competencies of next level. E. G. Standard expected is standard expected at level 4
Click to expand...
That's absolutely the case for 7-6 and 6-5.

But those are levels where you can just sit at forever. Once you're level 4, you'll be being constantly observed and need to meet a required minimum standard just to stay where you are. Standard expected makes sense in that context as the standard required to stay where you are - below standard means you need to be moved down, above standard means you need to be moved up.

Also don't forget that these promotions from 5-4 and above come with big steps up in standard of football, number of spectators and financial implications on the teams you referee. Between 7 and 5 your level really just determines which grassroots division you referee and which side you're on when running a line. But the matches you referee as a 5 will be different to those you do as a 4, a 3 etc. Taking those steps up is a bigger deal.
 
Justylove said:
I don’t see it as being ridiculous.

Going from 5-4 is the biggest single jump a referee will make in their career. It’s moving from county FA to national FA, from recreational football to semi pro, from free entry games to ones where spectators pay their hard earned money to come and watch.

It’s clear that if you get a 3 across the board you won’t get promoted. Therefore you need to find at least 50% of the competencies that you do better than that (can be less if you are getting 5’s in areas but I’ve not had one in 3 observations yet). I’d say the bar is now higher to reach the standard than it was before, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, hopefully it will cut down on the number of referees coming back down to 5 after just 2 seasons because they are out of their depth.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the chasm between Levels 5 and 4 mate. ;)

My criticism is levelled at the illogical way the competency standards are graded/scored.

As already mentioned, when being observed as a promotion candidate, (5-4) you're being "assessed" as a Level 4. If you attain 3.5's throughout ie "standard expected" - which will just scrape you through to the lowest acceptable mark (70) in which case you won't be promoted then how the trousery bollox can it be logical to advise a referee that even though he's the "standard expected" of the next level - he's not having promotion? That was my point. With the best will in the world - it's not logical. It's like sitting your driving test, ticking all the boxes performing all the manoeuvres correctly and then being told "Sorry" but we still don't want you to drive a car"
I totally get the "raising of the bar" argument and agree with it to a large extent but the way we grade our 5-4's is daft and needs changing (IMO). :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top