5-4 observation

[GraemeS]

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).

As per my previous post, the way it's done at 5-4 and above makes a lot more sense to me than the way it's done at 7-6 and 6-5. That's the question you should be asking!

 

[Big Cat]

Not at all convinced the standard of football sky rockets at step 5 and above. More a reflection of which clubs can meet the grading requirements.
Referee promotion requirements should be standardised. Any L5-4 promotion candidate achieving the indicated 'pass' standard, ought to be nominated for promotion. It is then reasonable for the FA to select the best candidates to fulfil the number of L4 vacancies. My issue would arise from achieving the required standard, but not then being nominated

 

[JamesL]

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.

As a level 4 Graeme I am quite aware.

What I meant was that being marked as standard expected was that you were displaying the standard expected to become a level 4

 

[Justylove]

Not at all convinced the standard of football sky rockets at step 5 and above. More a reflection of which clubs can meet the grading requirements.
Referee promotion requirements should be standardised. Any L5-4 promotion candidate achieving the indicated 'pass' standard, ought to be nominated for promotion. It is then reasonable for the FA to select the best candidates to fulfil the number of L4 vacancies. My issue would arise from achieving the required standard, but not then being nominated

That is true. There are 2 clubs that dominate at Step 7 in the league I do that would be better than most teams in the Step 6 division and competitive at Step 5, however can’t meet the ground grading requirements to go up.
However, coming back to the point on observations, at lower levels if you meet the criteria, you get promoted, end of story. At 5-4 there needs to be a greater level of differentiation between candidates as it's possible that not every referee nominated by the county FA will get taken. In my County, this season there are around 30 referees going 5-4 that have passed the fitness test, if every referee gets above 70 average, then there may well be some that don't get taken this year.

Any time you are giving a score to someone, there is a level of subjectivity around that mark. It was the same in previous years and the category weighting for the marks amplified this. I've looked at my observations this season and in some categories have thought that a 3 was harsh and it should have been a 4 and vice versa.

My biggest gripe with the way that the old 5-4 observations were done (and the current L4 way) is that it there is a major concentration of candidates around a very small marking range. It Seems that the new 5-4 system should drive a wider range of marks than the old one.

 

[Big Cat]

That is true. There are 2 clubs that dominate at Step 7 in the league I do that would be better than most teams in the Step 6 division and competitive at Step 5, however can’t meet the ground grading requirements to go up.
However, coming back to the point on observations, at lower levels if you meet the criteria, you get promoted, end of story. At 5-4 there needs to be a greater level of differentiation between candidates as it's possible that not every referee nominated by the county FA will get taken. In my County, this season there are around 30 referees going 5-4 that have passed the fitness test, if every referee gets above 70 average, then there may well be some that don't get taken this year.

Any time you are giving a score to someone, there is a level of subjectivity around that mark. It was the same in previous years and the category weighting for the marks amplified this. I've looked at my observations this season and in some categories have thought that a 3 was harsh and it should have been a 4 and vice versa.

My biggest gripe with the way that the old 5-4 observations were done (and the current L4 way) is that it there is a major concentration of candidates around a very small marking range. It Seems that the new 5-4 system should drive a wider range of marks than the old one.

7 to 6 ,,, I haven't heard of a mark (from all my peers) outside of the range 67 to 75
Why have a range of 1 to 100 but end up with a very steep bell curve centred on 68-71?

Anyway 5 to 4, nominate those who meet the required standard and leave it to the FA to skim the cream off the top. At least the candidate then gets some recognition despite possibly missing out, whilst the standard required remains standardised

 

[RustyRef]

I think the wording is a bit misleading. Standard expected, or 3, actually means that "the referee has no opportunity to demonstrate a particular criterion (in a specific competency)", or they have demonstrated some faults even if small. It would probably be better named not applicable or some issues rather than standard expected. There will be some competencies where it is impossible to demonstrate any criteria, for example in a game no assistants you can't demonstrate teamwork, if there are no penalties or attacking free kicks then you can't manage them appropriately, etc. But these competencies are few and far between and most of them the referee can demonstrate them in even the most boring of games.

As an example, in correct sanctions to get a 3 you need to have given the majority of sanctions in accordance with law. That isn't good enough to get to L4, and to get a mark of 4 you need to have given all sanctions in accordance with law. Likewise in the appropriately positioned competency, to get a 3 you have to be in a correct position most of the time, to get a 4 that changes to all of the time, but you have a get out in that it says if you were in poor positions but always made an effort to correct it you can still have a 4.

Referees need to know the competencies that they are being judged against off by heart to get the marks they need. For example, one referee did his pre-match briefing but didn't ask his assistants if they had any questions. That meant the observer couldn't award above a 3, but if he had muttered those few words he would have got a 4.