6-5 observation report

[Padfoot]

Interestingly when at my promotion evening earlier this week we were told that when observed you start at standard expected, which means you start as if you are competent for L6 (in my case) and then depending on what you do you will swing either towards above standard or below. The RDO advised that if you do your normal game, make no mistakes in application of law, match control etc then you will stay standard expected (essentially you have an easy game). If something happens, then depending on how you deal with it will depend if you go up or down.

So essentially we were told that you start as if you are standard expected for the level you are seeking and only you can change that if something happens and how you deal with it.

This is therefore different to what Padfoot is saying, I guess the feedback to observers obviously varies from CFA to CFA as this would be confusing information to be giving out otherwise.

An absolutely ridiculous assumption to start an observation with.

The only thing that you can hope is that the referee you are observing is competent at their current level. Then based on what is observed, there will either be evidence to show that they are capable of operating at the higher level (Standard Expected) or there won't be. If no evidence is observed how can you be judged to be competent? You can't....you can be assumed to be competent......but we all know what assumptions do.

If that advice was given at our Observers refresher training, I would nod politely and promptly ignore it as it has no basis to provide a robust system which ensures that the referees I deem to be competent and thus worthy of promotion, are actually competent......it just means that I would be making assumptions without any evidence to support.

 

[GraemeS]

An absolutely ridiculous assumption to start an observation with.

The only thing that you can hope is that the referee you are observing is competent at their current level. Then based on what is observed, there will either be evidence to show that they are capable of operating at the higher level (Standard Expected) or there won't be. If no evidence is observed how can you be judged to be competent? You can't....you can be assumed to be competent......but we all know what assumptions do.

If that advice was given at our Observers refresher training, I would nod politely and promptly ignore it as it has no basis to provide a robust system which ensures that the referees I deem to be competent and thus worthy of promotion, are actually competent......it just means that I would be making assumptions without any evidence to support.

Not to go round in circles, but that's just as much an assumption as what Twinblade has written. The only difference is that your assumption punishes the referee for having a quiet and easy game while his doesn't.

 

[Padfoot]

Not to go round in circles, but that's just as much an assumption as what Twinblade has written. The only difference is that your assumption punishes the referee for having a quiet and easy game while his doesn't.

We are definitely going in circles.......but........explain to me how a judgement can be made about competency if it isn't observed by the observer? What evidence is used to make a determination of competency?

 

[Brian Hamilton]

A few thoughts... apologies for misspelling or missing words but I'm on my phone in th canteen again.

You can only referee what's in front of you, so you can only observe and report on what's in front of you. If it doesn't happen, it's doesn't mean you can't deal with it, it just didn't happen in your game. That means you get a Standard mark. At Supply and above that would be a 7/10. The idea that you should be marked down for something that didn't happen is preposterous.

Certainly compare the performance to the criteria for the new level, but if it doesn't happen in the game, it's not in the report and can't affect the mark/grading.

If a game has 5 cautions then it's on the borderline for whether that was a good test or not, particularly if this was a Sunday League game. I averaged just under 3 cautions a game in my career and I was supposedly card happy. So a five card game is a little challenging.

On the report itself this is a cut and paste job with some adaptation for the pre match comments made by the referee. There is nothing specific about the game (timed examples are key) and to drop in something at the end that's not mentioned anywhere else, just so you can fill a box smacks of it not being deleted from the last time this template was used.

Lazy observer, lazy report.

 

[Cheshire Ref]

If that advice was given at our Observers refresher training, I would nod politely and promptly ignore it

Last weeks Observer!!!

 

[Padfoot]

A few thoughts... apologies for misspelling or missing words but I'm on my phone in th canteen again.

You can only referee what's in front of you, so you can only observe and report on what's in front of you. If it doesn't happen, it's doesn't mean you can't deal with it, it just didn't happen in your game. That means you get a Standard mark. At Supply and above that would be a 7/10. The idea that you should be marked down for something that didn't happen is preposterous.

Certainly compare the performance to the criteria for the new level, but if it doesn't happen in the game, it's not in the report and can't affect the mark/grading.

If a game has 5 cautions then it's on the borderline for whether that was a good test or not, particularly if this was a Sunday League game. I averaged just under 3 cautions a game in my career and I was supposedly card happy. So a five card game is a little challenging.

On the report itself this is a cut and paste job with some adaptation for the pre match comments made by the referee. There is nothing specific about the game (timed examples are key) and to drop in something at the end that's not mentioned anywhere else, just so you can fill a box smacks of it not being deleted from the last time this template was used.

Lazy observer, lazy report.

No one is saying someone would be marked down for not displaying a competency, but equally you cannot be credited for it either.....which means you haven't demonstrated compentency.

 

[Mewcenary]

If you want to get an above standard mark on a dull 'nothing happening' game, that's where you need to make sure you shine in everything you do. Teamwork, positioning, fitness levels... put the polish on the performance. It is completely possible to get the higher marks by being professional and putting the effort in.