5-4 Promotion Season
- Thread starter Justylove
- Start date
Justylove
RefChat Addict
Many thanks, that helps! I've got my 5-4 workshop on the 25th of the month and we've been told we won't be observed until after that (and the fitness test)
Yep. Why waste resources observing referees that can't pass the fitness test. They won't be getting promoted.of they get 5 above standards anyway. An unreal scenario I know..
How does the new standards work for picking which candidates to promote? Every year there are referees that meet all of the criteria but don't get promoted due to "falling outside numbers required"?
Is this editable PDF made public or are the competencies kept secret?
It makes sense to use a standardised form of this nature. I very much approve of this sort of methodology
CFA's have it now so I'm sure they will be sharing with candidates soon. Observers will need retraining as it is completely different.
Justylove
RefChat Addict
I agree on the fitness test front, its a definite pre-req to do.
The new standards and choosing who to promote will be interesting, by all accounts there are a large number of 5-4 applicants in my county this year, obviously some will be weeded out through injury, failing the fitness test or getting below the benchmark across their observations, but that potentially still leaves more candidates than L4 positions.
Have to wait and see I guess!
It's okay at min as everyone has an average mark. Then can be benchmarked on availability and admin.
But if you take away the average and replace it with an arbitrary achieved standard or above Standard then you lose the half marks that can make the difference between selection. Interesting indeed
Justylove
RefChat Addict
It was an average of 73 in Hampshire
If you're not on the list you aint coming in!!!
Surely if there a 100 candidates who meet the criteria all should be promoted not only 50 because there are only 50 positions available surely it is better to have more qualified refs than the bare minimum. Refs get injured have family and work commitments, and with a bigger pool there might not be as much travelling and less burn out and less injuries.
This is actually my understanding of how it works. Don’t think county FAs actually decide on 4+. Though they clearly administer the process for 5-4 and will no doubt have an influence. Perhaps the criteria is different per region based on needs? Ie a county with low numbers might have a lower minimum score whereas a county with too many referees could set an extremely high bar? Either way my understanding is if you meet the criteria you are promoted.
Not true. I met the criteria first time round and didn't get promoted.
My availability was a bit iffy due to some other commitments but fact is I met the criteria.
I was told, and I quote, "ranked outside numbers required".
Justylove
RefChat Addict
Your County FA nominates you as having met the criteria, but the FA chooses based on what they need. If there are 15 referees from your county nominated and the FA only needs 10, then 5 are going to be disappointed
I take it the top 10 in that 15 get promoted, not just a random selection of 10?
CFAs rank the referees they nominate in order of precedence. Observer marks will obviously be the biggest factor, but they can also take into account club marks, availability, administration, etc.
The required mark has changed from 73 to 70, but I would guess that is because the form is totally different. The competency categories are now as below, number in brackets is the number of competencies in that category ...
- Application of law (3)
- Match control (4)
- Fitness, workrate & positioning (3)
- Stoppages & technical offences (2)
- Game understanding (3)
- Teamwork (2)
- Communication (3)
You get a score for each competency of 1 (well below standard) to 5 (well above standard), with 3 being standard expected. If the referee has no opportunity to demonstrate a particular criterion they get a 3 for that. Where a 3 is awarded the observer doesn't have to add any text. If a 1 or 2 is awarded they have to provide timed evidence and solution(s) for the problem(s) identified. If a 4 or 5 is awarded they have to provide evidence for this, but there doesn't appear to be a requirement for timed evidence.
Comments in the strengths or development sections are limited to 400 characters which isn't a lot so obsrvers will have to prioritise what they write.
What this means is that a candidate only getting standard expected for each competency will only score 60. So they will need to gain 10 extra marks which means getting above standard in half of the competencies, or less if they manage any well above standards.
The required mark has changed from 73 to 70, but I would guess that is because the form is totally different. The competency categories are now as below, number in brackets is the number of competencies in that category ...
- Application of law (3)
- Match control (4)
- Fitness, workrate & positioning (3)
- Stoppages & technical offences (2)
- Game understanding (3)
- Teamwork (2)
- Communication (3)
You get a score for each competency of 1 (well below standard) to 5 (well above standard), with 3 being standard expected. If the referee has no opportunity to demonstrate a particular criterion they get a 3 for that. Where a 3 is awarded the observer doesn't have to add any text. If a 1 or 2 is awarded they have to provide timed evidence and solution(s) for the problem(s) identified. If a 4 or 5 is awarded they have to provide evidence for this, but there doesn't appear to be a requirement for timed evidence.
Comments in the strengths or development sections are limited to 400 characters which isn't a lot so obsrvers will have to prioritise what they write.
What this means is that a candidate only getting standard expected for each competency will only score 60. So they will need to gain 10 extra marks which means getting above standard in half of the competencies, or less if they manage any well above standards.
- Application of law (3)
- Recognised and penalised fouls correctly and consistently
- Issues correct sanctions and applied the 'stepped' approach appropriately
- Applied advantage effectively and managed follow-up appropriately
- Match control (4)
- Had control of the match at every stage
- Reacted appropriately to changes in the 'temperature' of the match
- Was consistent, objective and not influenced by others
- Was firm, decisive, self-confident & self-assured
- Fitness, work rate & positioning (3)
- Was appropriately positioned to be able to make credible decisions
- Was sufficiently close to play without interfering
- Displayed good stamina and sprint speed throughput the match
- Stoppages & technical offences (2)
- Managed penalty kicks and attacking free-kicks effectively (including free-kicks near the penalty area)
- Managed other re-starts correctly (goal-kicks, corner-kicks, throw-ins, & kick-offs)
- Game understanding (3)
- Anticipated what was going to happen next
- Prevented incidents escalating by recognising early potential threats
- Managed player intentions and game situations in an empathetic manager
- Teamwork (2)
- Gave effective pre-match instructions to assistant referees (ARs)
- Acted correctly and communicated well when offences were indicated by the ARs
- Communication (3)
- Signalled effectively and with confidence
- Used the whistle effectively (including varying the tone appropriately)
- Displayed positive body language, especially when under pressure