RefSix

5-4 Promotion Season

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#22
- 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
How might these compare with 7 to 6 or 6 to 5 competencies? Assuming they're not all the same
 

one

RefChat Addict
#23
- Application of law (3)
- Match control (4)
- Fitness, workrate & positioning (3)
- Stoppages & technical offences (2)
- Game understanding (3)
- Teamwork (2)
- Communication (3)
Very much surprised with the weight given to Application of Laws. This, in theory means you can totally and utterly fail in application of laws (zero) and still end up with an 85. Yes I know it's next to impossible in practice but it highlights the lack of importance give to application of law which is the foundation of refereeing. Many of the KMIs fall under this category.

In Australia, Interpretation and Application of Laws account for 40% of the mark and getting less than 50% of this specific competency would result in a fail in the entire assessment ( and usually no marks recorded on the report).
 

Justylove

Well-Known Member
#24
After a bit of digestion of these, I like them (at least in theory).

In the "old" system, there was a lot that was out of the referees control in terms of getting a "good" mark. To unlock the higher scores, the match had to be challenging and little or no credit was given to the referee who managed to keep a lid on the game through having excellent match control. The old 5-4 was not dissimilar to the 4 observations and I've lost count of the times I've heard L4's being observed after a good solid first half, talking about how they "need to find a caution or two" in the second half to get a good mark. That for me drives the wrong type of behaviour from the referee, they end up looking to find things to appease the scoring system, rather than having an excellent game.

The second thing that I'll be interested to see how it pans out, is that under the old system the marks tend to be very compressed within a small range (in the 70's), so a referee that's had an exceptional game is often only scoring a few more marks than one who's had an ok one. It also means that you could have 4 good observations and then have one where the observer believes you should have cautioned for an offence that you chose to manage take your mark down to a point where you become marginal for promotion. I'm hoping that there will be a wider range of marks (50's for a game where a referee was poor, through to mid/high 80's for one where the referee has had an exception game) and we're not simply seeing a marking range of 66-74 for all performances.

I also like, assuming I've read @RustyRef post right, that you are getting a mark for each competency under the heading topics, so you may get a 4 for recognising and penalising fouls correctly and consistently, but a 2 for issuing the correct sanction, as opposed to "you missed a caution so that's your AoL score completely in the toilet"

As an example, game I had on Saturday, I walked away from it thinking "Thank **** I wasn't being observed," not because my performance was poor, far from it, on honest self reflection I felt that it was the one of the most complete performances that I've ever had as a referee. I stamped out any form of dissent early without having to resort to cards, I managed a couple of other incidents early very strongly which left the players in no doubt that I was in charge, my positioning was excellent to identify the 2 KMI's in the game, including the award of a penalty that was right on the edge of the area. I ended up with no cards, both managers telling me I had an outstanding game, 22 handshakes from players and a number of spectators telling me I'd had a superb game as well. Under the old system, I genuinely think I'd have struggled to get an good mark, but under the new system, I'd hope that the mark would be a fairer reflection of my performance.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, and I'll find out personally once I've passed the fitness test!
 
#25
After a bit of digestion of these, I like them (at least in theory).

In the "old" system, there was a lot that was out of the referees control in terms of getting a "good" mark. To unlock the higher scores, the match had to be challenging and little or no credit was given to the referee who managed to keep a lid on the game through having excellent match control. The old 5-4 was not dissimilar to the 4 observations and I've lost count of the times I've heard L4's being observed after a good solid first half, talking about how they "need to find a caution or two" in the second half to get a good mark. That for me drives the wrong type of behaviour from the referee, they end up looking to find things to appease the scoring system, rather than having an excellent game.
That might an historic way of doing it, but the modern day reality is different. I've observed five 5-4 candidates this year and for three of these they had nothing to do, yet still got a strong mark from me. I'd like to think modern observers are fairer than maybe they were in the past, or certainly more than people seem to give them credit for, because I also know quite a few who would rather you avoided trouble than go looking for it.

I only comment on things that are within the referee's control, two teams who don't put a tackle in all day and give the referee nothing to do have little to no impact on the mark i would give, provided the ref did everything else correctly.
 

WilliamD

Well-Known Member
#26
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.
Thanks v much for sharing! So helpful.

One question I have is around "standard" and "above standard". My understanding the last few promotions is that we are being judged at the level you are going for. So a 7 going for 6 is rated based on a 6. So "at standard" means you are performing at the level of a 6 and "above standard" means you are performing above the level of a 6 - either a very good 6 or a 5. According to the new 5-4 scoring we will need to perform "above standard" at least for parts of a match to get an "at standard" rating - does that really mean we (as 5s) need to be performing, for at least parts of a match, like an experienced 4 or even a 3 just to get the total at standard rating. Seems odd to me, but perhaps there is a change where the relativity point for standard is reset.
 
Top