Absolutely fuming

[SM]

Well no lies i am completely stunned. Assessment came through today from the weekend and it is a massive shock. Never have I received a report which bears so little semblance to a game I was involved in with some statements in the report either not having appeared in the post match feedback and/or being completely at odds with my experience of the actual game.

I was in work when it came through and I filled the swear fine jar on the first read through.

For instance, the post match feedback of: you had no problems getting around the pitch but get into the corner more on non-AR side, became: laboured and struggling to get into good positions! What the balls is that? This is not to mention a brand new development point which appeared around anticipation.

There is stuff about dissent being given throughout the entire game, I spoke to 2 players to tell them they were getting on my nerves and they stopped. No real dissent aside from that, and I have proven quite low tolerance to dissent, there were lots of strong claims for things, but no dissent after the decision was gone. Match control suffered as a result? What fudging game was this guy watching? And if this was the case, where was this in the post match feedback?

The report has 1 positive written on it. Makes you think why the fudge monkey do I bother.

Perhaps this sounds like moaning, perhaps it is, but it is incredibly frustrating to have a report which slates you - not supportive in any way. I just can't use this report to develop my game as it just doesn't reflect the game I was in.

All this from a game that went well, felt like a good performance and presented no real problems in a well contested but scrappy game. And from the feedback it had felt fairly positive, until the report came through that is.

Stopped myself from sending an email expressing my displeasure, frustration and surprise back. Probably not a good or helpful idea.

 

[Tealeaf]

 

[SM]

Yes, now I have vented about it that probably is the best plan.

 

[Padfoot]

Have you had that assessor before?

 

[ref craig]

I have an assessment looming before the end of the season and I'm dreading it but obviously need it for my 6 here comes to the first marking season of going for promotion

 

[SM]

Have you had that assessor before?

First time.

Water under the bridge now, not worth wasting my energy on it.

 

[Padfoot]

First time.

Water under the bridge now, not worth wasting my energy on it.

Might be worth asking around to see if other referees have had similar experiences with that assessor.

Also, you will need to know how to deal with him should you have him again.....

 

[PP62]

I have an assessment looming before the end of the season and I'm dreading it but obviously need it for my 6 here comes to the first marking season of going for promotion

Craig, there's no need to dread assessors. I have been assessed loads of times and have assessed several promotion candidates myself. Just referee the way you do usually and apply the laws correctly. Most of us assessors are there to help your progress although there are one or two who seem to be out to get you (but they're probably not). We're all referees, either active or retired and understand the stress you'll be under so whoever comes to watch you will almost certainly make you feel at ease. Keep us posted with your progress and good luck.

 

[ref craig]

Thanks pp62

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I share your pain SM. I too have had a number of assssments where the incidents discussed weren't even close to what happened in the game. Ticks you off when some incompetent muppet gets to ruin your promotion chances for the season just because he has a clipboard.

 

[zarathustra]

On a slightly related note, last weekend I attended a development session for my 7-6 bid, during one of the sessions another guy there asked a question because he'd been marked down on an assessment for saying 'play on, advantage' and not just 'advantage'.

The answer he got was that these things will happen and to just take it on the chin. He did say that he'd already raised it with the RDO as well.

On my BRC last August we were told, and the LOTG agree, that 'play on advantage' is the phrase to use, although I admit just shouting 'advantage' instead wouldn't make a difference.

So, the question I'm slowly working up to is, how can people become or remain assessors if they're not upto date with what is currently taught to new refs? Obviously this question primarily relates to those assessing relatively new refs going from 7-6.

The reaction from the tutor taking the sessions shows that this is to be expected and to just go with it. Which to my mind doesn't bode well for new refs trying to get promotion.

I could easily see people getting disheartened and packing it in, especially if they miss promotion because an assessor is judging against what he was taught, not what was taught to the referee or is currently in the good book.

 

[Midsref]

For clarification, the correct call is 'Play On. Advantage' and it must be accompanied by the correct signal.

 

[SM]

I was out on the line for a vastly more experienced local colleague today. Throughly enjoyable game, good fun. He is past worrying about assessments (been there and done it) so we just got to officiate a game of football. Good stuff.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

On a slightly related note, last weekend I attended a development session for my 7-6 bid, during one of the sessions another guy there asked a question because he'd been marked down on an assessment for saying 'play on, advantage' and not just 'advantage'.

The answer he got was that these things will happen and to just take it on the chin. He did say that he'd already raised it with the RDO as well.

On my BRC last August we were told, and the LOTG agree, that 'play on advantage' is the phrase to use, although I admit just shouting 'advantage' instead wouldn't make a difference.

So, the question I'm slowly working up to is, how can people become or remain assessors if they're not upto date with what is currently taught to new refs? Obviously this question primarily relates to those assessing relatively new refs going from 7-6.

The reaction from the tutor taking the sessions shows that this is to be expected and to just go with it. Which to my mind doesn't bode well for new refs trying to get promotion.

I could easily see people getting disheartened and packing it in, especially if they miss promotion because an assessor is judging against what he was taught, not what was taught to the referee or is currently in the good book.

There's not enough assessors. Those likely to assess 7-6 may be active referees themselves in my experience but may also assess at a higher level. This higher level will require a pre-season training event every season with a LotG test at least every other season. How many referees who are not attempting promotion do that much re-training in the LotG each season/two seasons?

The use of one incorrect term will not result in a failed promotion bid. If people feel disheartened or give up because of this, then perhaps they don't have the necessary cojones to be a referee in the first place.

Life isn't fair, deal with it.

 

[Brian Hamilton]

Might be worth asking around to see if other referees have had similar experiences with that assessor.

Also, you will need to know how to deal with him should you have him again.....

Do this. If others have the same problem he may be known to the co-ordinator and his assessments reviewed.

 

[bester]

Basics errors in the report should be picked up by the assessor coordinator, failing that by the RDO.

 

[zarathustra]

There's not enough assessors. Those likely to assess 7-6 may be active referees themselves in my experience but may also assess at a higher level. This higher level will require a pre-season training event every season with a LotG test at least every other season. How many referees who are not attempting promotion do that much re-training in the LotG each season/two seasons?

The use of one incorrect term will not result in a failed promotion bid. If people feel disheartened or give up because of this, then perhaps they don't have the necessary cojones to be a referee in the first place.

Life isn't fair, deal with it.

I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate that there is a severe lack of assessors in many areas.

However that doesn't mean that young referees just starting out should just man up and deal with the fact that they get incorrectly marked down for something which they would expect the person assessing them for promotion to the next level to know.

Aside from getting disheartened, people may lose faith in the assessment system which can only be a bad thing.

And yes, I do realise that the example I gave isn't going to make or break someones promotion.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

For clarification, the correct call is 'Play On. Advantage' and it must be accompanied by the correct signal.

I say this a lot, but this is what's wrong with refereeing. The fact that people who should know better are squabbling over whether they're supposed to assess referees on 'play on' or 'play on advantage'. A ludicrous amount of time is spent on stuff that doesn't matter in the slightest, but not nearly enough time on stuff that does. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[AlexF]

Note that here in Canada, we are now being instructed to say nothing more than "Advantage", leaving "play" and "play on" for situations where there's no foul or those situations where the players may think there's a foul but the referee disagrees.

 

[Frank]

I would be inclined to contact your county assessor co-ordinator. And without being critical of the assessor, show the co-ordinator the assessment you received, and ask him to consider whether it was a reasonable assessment, particularly as there was only one positive comment.