6-5 observation report
- Thread starter Tiger
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 6-5 assessment observation
Hi there, welcome to the forum!
I'm intrigued why you want to put this up for "review", as it seems pretty reasonable to me. The observer makes a smart point about overusing advantage, which I've done myself knowing it is looked for in 6-5 assessments. Did he discuss specific incidents with you after the match where you should perhaps have pulled it back, or commented on Red/Yellow/Green zones for advantage? That would perhaps have been more useful than the fairly general statement he's put in writing.
His development point 3 is a strange one. If you go round the team as they're warming up and try and inspect them as they're moving, it's a fair point: you need to do this in a more organised fashion. If you gather them together but as two separate teams (as I tend to do), his preference for getting them all around the centre circle is just that - a preference - and shouldn't be in the report. Similarly, development point 2 is reasonable if it's simply there to remind you about something that was discussed - but not much use if it wasn't broken down in more detail post-match.
I am always a little suspicious of reports that give "standard expected" across the board, as it's hard to imagine that you did nothing particularly good or bad. But having said that, it sounds from the written section as if you had a fairly easy game - and unfortunately, the nature of assessments when the difficulty of matches can vary wildly is that it's difficult to justify anything "above standard" if it's a fairly standard match. It's good enough to keep your promotion on track - take the development points on board and you'll breeze through the next two!
I'm intrigued why you want to put this up for "review", as it seems pretty reasonable to me. The observer makes a smart point about overusing advantage, which I've done myself knowing it is looked for in 6-5 assessments. Did he discuss specific incidents with you after the match where you should perhaps have pulled it back, or commented on Red/Yellow/Green zones for advantage? That would perhaps have been more useful than the fairly general statement he's put in writing.
His development point 3 is a strange one. If you go round the team as they're warming up and try and inspect them as they're moving, it's a fair point: you need to do this in a more organised fashion. If you gather them together but as two separate teams (as I tend to do), his preference for getting them all around the centre circle is just that - a preference - and shouldn't be in the report. Similarly, development point 2 is reasonable if it's simply there to remind you about something that was discussed - but not much use if it wasn't broken down in more detail post-match.
I am always a little suspicious of reports that give "standard expected" across the board, as it's hard to imagine that you did nothing particularly good or bad. But having said that, it sounds from the written section as if you had a fairly easy game - and unfortunately, the nature of assessments when the difficulty of matches can vary wildly is that it's difficult to justify anything "above standard" if it's a fairly standard match. It's good enough to keep your promotion on track - take the development points on board and you'll breeze through the next two!
Agree with @RustyRef The comments about advantage are useful, at your level, you should only have 1 or 2 a game, given the skill of the players. Advantage should be used to allow an enhanced attacking opportunity, not to avoid making a decision.
The third development point seems a bit too prescriptive, about being around the CC. But the point is to the previous match inspections properly.
The third development point seems a bit too prescriptive, about being around the CC. But the point is to the previous match inspections properly.
As @GraemeS said, it sounds like getting the players in the centre circle is a personal preference for the observer. The general point about doing the checks in an organised fashion is a good one, and the observer probably put that way as an example of one way to make it more organised. I tend to do mine about 5 minutes before KO with each team individually. Any earlier than that and most of them haven't put their shinpads etc on yet!
Maybe, but the observer's text does also imply that these were fairly "obvious" yellows. If they were effective at clamping down on dissent, that might count positively towards match control, but I don't know if they have to show some kind of "exceptional" knowledge of law in order to give AOL bonus points? As I said before, it sounds like the subject here has suffered from everything going a little too smoothly!
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Time to be a lone voice i guess.......
I think it is very poorly written. There are no examples of when advantage was used inappropriately to aid you with your analysis.....no times, no specifics nothing.
Absolutely no mention of development points 2 & 3 in the main body of the report......so no idea of how or what you are supposed to change in your movement?
No details of the players involved in the cautions or the reasons for them.
In short, absolutely no evidence presented to justify a "Standard Expected" in every competency....
As for the idea that 5 cautions administered correctly is worthy of an "Above Standard".....no, just no. Getting cautions correct is a fundamental basic, certainly at 6-5, and managing to get 5 of them correct is simply what I would expect from a level 7 ref, never mind a level 5.
Wishy Washy, with development points that have no evidence presented to support them, and strengths that have not been detailed correctly in that there is not one example of an occasion when a strength was evident. I would expect to see at least specific timed example of something that was being listed as a strength........
Maybe that's why my observations regularly run to 4 or 5 pages........
I think it is very poorly written. There are no examples of when advantage was used inappropriately to aid you with your analysis.....no times, no specifics nothing.
Absolutely no mention of development points 2 & 3 in the main body of the report......so no idea of how or what you are supposed to change in your movement?
No details of the players involved in the cautions or the reasons for them.
In short, absolutely no evidence presented to justify a "Standard Expected" in every competency....
As for the idea that 5 cautions administered correctly is worthy of an "Above Standard".....no, just no. Getting cautions correct is a fundamental basic, certainly at 6-5, and managing to get 5 of them correct is simply what I would expect from a level 7 ref, never mind a level 5.
Wishy Washy, with development points that have no evidence presented to support them, and strengths that have not been detailed correctly in that there is not one example of an occasion when a strength was evident. I would expect to see at least specific timed example of something that was being listed as a strength........
Maybe that's why my observations regularly run to 4 or 5 pages........
Harsh but true.
Surely "Standard expected" is where you start, and any other score has to be justified as a deviation from that standard? You're saying that you don't see evidence to justify a "Standard Expected" mark - I'm saying that it sounds like a fairly dull match where the referee did what was expected of him, didn't do anything exceptional and the observer didn't spot him doing much wrong really.
You can argue that the report should be longer, but I don't think you can read that report and justify less than standard expected for anything other than maaaaaaybe the advantage issue....and that would be fairly harsh, given the observer also comments that the advantage did work out often as well. You can't blame a referee and put his promotion back by low-scoring him just because the match went without significant incident!
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
The FA changed the grading for the just finished marking season.....
"Standard Expected" means the referee is operating at the level for which they have applied
"Below Standard" means they are operating at their current level.
So in this case Standard Expected across the board means the candidate has displayed level 5 competencies across all criteria.
But not one meaningful piece of evidence is offered within the report to support such a grading nor has anything tangible offered to explain the development points.
It's beige in the extreme and offers the referee precious little help in developing. Even if greater detail was discussed in debrief it should still be in the report so the candidate has it as a reference tool going forwards.
"Standard Expected" means the referee is operating at the level for which they have applied
"Below Standard" means they are operating at their current level.
So in this case Standard Expected across the board means the candidate has displayed level 5 competencies across all criteria.
But not one meaningful piece of evidence is offered within the report to support such a grading nor has anything tangible offered to explain the development points.
It's beige in the extreme and offers the referee precious little help in developing. Even if greater detail was discussed in debrief it should still be in the report so the candidate has it as a reference tool going forwards.
Oh I'm definitely not defending the quality of the report - I've had short ones before, but they usually at least point out specific incidents.
The point I'm trying to make is that the referee needs "Standard Expected" across the board for his promotion. In order to suggest he shouldn't have been given that mark, surely you have to cite moments where he's not performed to that standard. If the match is bland and he doesn't even have the opportunity to avoid making a mistake, that's not his fault (and perhaps even indicates that he's kept a lid on it) and it seems mad to suggest he should be kept back a year because his match went well?
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
However, if he doesn't display some of the required competencies because of the nature of the match, how can he obtain "Standard Expected" in the relevant areas?
Sometimes there are matches where a candidate doesn't get to display their full range of competencies.....so I can't observe those competencies, which means I cannot make a judgment on them......if there are enough of those compentencies in one area that aren't evident then I cannot say that they meet them for promotion purposes, therefore they won't get a Standard Expected in that area.
You cannot assess something (or observe) that isn't there.
The report could be a 7-6 as much as it is supposed to be a 6-5....which is where the problem is. There is nothing to evidence the higher level of competence other than vague hints of grey areas that might or might not be relevant.
Do you have a link to where that is written down? I have the Aide Memoire documents for the competencies but it isn't listed in there, a Google search has come up blank, so I'm not sure where that change of grading has come from?
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Was briefed out at our Annual "refresher" training last year......
Never seen anything in black and white.....
RefJef
RefChat Addict
Again, I'm not disputing that this particular report is a little vague and fluffy. But there's nothing in it stating that he was lacking in any of the competencies either, so how can you assume he's "Below Standard"? That's just as un-observable, but much much harsher on someone who literally hasn't done anything wrong!
If you're correct, I could have two matches that are "standard expected", one match that is easy and just happens to not give me a chance to show my ability and then fail a promotion season as a result? In this scenario, I've made no mistakes and just happen to get one match observed where two teams play a fairly friendly game - and a years work is down the toilet.
That's rubbish. By ticking the "below standard" box, you must be actively stating that you have seen something that makes you think a candidate is not ready for the next level. And you're prepared to scupper his promotion chances because you're that certain. The only logical way for this to work is if you start at "Standard Expected" and work up or down from there depending on what you see.
Well that is interesting, as I have never heard anything of the kind. You can only mark candidates based on what is written down, and that is the aide memoire documents.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
No. It is up to the candidate to demonstrate the required competencies for his desired promotion. If the match is such that he is unable to display those competencies, and lets be clear that it is a very very rare match where none of the competencies can be displayed, it will normally be in one, maybe two, areas that they are lacking. On a 6-5, if everything else is good, it should still result in an overall Standard Expected...bit more critical at 7-6 as fewer areas are looked at, however, balanced out by it being a bit easier to make a more subjective overall view due to the lower level.
Over the course of a marking season, and 3 observations, it should be possible for a candidate to display all required competencies so a quiet match where one or two areas aren't in evidence, it shouldn't cost a candidate the promotion.
If there are other issues then that may be a different outcome.
Rightly or wrongly, sometimes it will come down to whether I feel a referee "looks" like a level 5 ref, or whatever level they are going for....especially in a game where there has been limited opportunities to demonstrate competency. Then I have to look at what I have got, and make a subjective decision about where I can apply the evidence to give the candidate the mark they deserve.
But if I genuinely haven't got enough to justify the mark, I have no qualms about not giving a Standard Expected and will explain why to the referee on debrief.
Certainly our neighbouring counties have been operating on the same principles.....so it's clearly been fed out from somewhere. To be honest, it makes a certain amount of sense......and it's not that much of a mental stretch to grasp.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Can understand where you are coming from Graeme but regrettably that's simply not the way the scheme works. As Padders has said, observers are merely asked to see how many of the higher level competencies are demonstrated by the referee in that particular match. In fact, the presumption is that the referee will perform at his current level and thus it is up to him to ensure he (or she) takes every opportunity to tick as many of the necessary boxes as possible (which is obviously easier in some games than others!).
This is why any referee going for promotion should understand the desired criteria back to front and be actively looking for chances to show off their full variety of skills ... thus things like finding a reason to use the stepped approach, cautioning for PI, halting the taking of a corner to 'sort out' 2 squabbling players etc etc are all useful techniques to apply ...