Advantage law- SPA

[one]

A harsh reality and not right but in many cases assessors / observers decide what the outcome of the report should be before they write their report. That decision is based on gut feel and what they have seen in the game. They then write the report to match that outcome. This is much more common with the 'legends' in fields. I have had first hand experience in this. With the newer assessors and the clearer guidelines the process has improved.

Sounds incredibly harsh to have marked you as "Below Standard" when by all accounts, you had only one incident in the whole game where the Observer has essentially disagreed with the action you've taken/not taken. I'd be a bit concerned about the reasoning he's used to be honest, If he feels the challenge in the 82nd minute was reckless then that's one thing but he actually mentions the fact that it was a deliberate attempt to stop a promising attack. Since you played advantage, that's surely irrelevant as the laws don't allow you to go back and caution that player anymore. Unless I'm missing something?

I think you are missing the fact that even if the challenge stopped a promising attack, if he thought the challenge was reckless the the laws do allow him to go back and caution. And the report does actually say the challenge was reckless.

 

[SW20]

I think you are missing the fact that even if the challenge stopped a promising attack, if he thought the challenge was reckless the the laws do allow him to go back and caution. And the report does actually say the challenge was reckless.

No, I do understand that but why even mention the promising attack part? It's surely irrelevant when deciding on whether to caution the player or not. A reckless tackle is a booking regardless of the incident/context, be that as part of a promising attack or not.

 

[JamesL]

No, I do understand that but why even mention the promising attack part? It's surely irrelevant when deciding on whether to caution the player or not. A reckless tackle is a booking regardless of the incident/context, be that as part of a promising attack or not.

It is relevant to provide context I suppose also makes it crystal clear which challenge he is referring too.

 

[one]

No, I do understand that but why even mention the promising attack part? It's surely irrelevant when deciding on whether to caution the player or not. A reckless tackle is a booking regardless of the incident/context, be that as part of a promising attack or not.

I think for the same reason you mentioned it in you post. I suspect that is what he was trying to explain.

 

[SW20]

It is relevant to provide context I suppose also makes it crystal clear which challenge he is referring too.

That's fair enough, I agree about providing the context, it's just the following line that I have questions about.

"the next action should have been a caution for that attempt as it was a reckless AND a deliberate attempt to stop a promising attack"

Perhaps I'm overanalysing it a bit but I just think it reads in a way that makes it sound like the Ref could've booked him for SPA, due to the fact he includes the word "AND" alongside the fact it was reckless. Like he's providing 2 justifications as to why the player should've been cautioned, when in reality there's only one. I guess the "reckless" point could be a fair one and just comes down to interpretation.

 

[socal lurker]

Being an excellent writer is not necessarily a skill all observers/assessors are going to have. But what he means is clear. The observer thought the tackle was reckless, and therefore the caution should have been given. I don't think the problem is in the writing, but the reasoning. Our colleague's mistake (in the eyes of the observer) was failing to recognize the challenge as reckless. But that is not a mistake in law, but a mistake in judgment. It would only be a mistake in law if @Eddie recognized the challenge as reckless and still failed to give the caution. (I know nothing about England standards, but failing an assessment because of one reckless challenge seems ridiculous to me.)

 

[Jtpetherick1]

Being an excellent writer is not necessarily a skill all observers/assessors are going to have. But what he means is clear. The observer thought the tackle was reckless, and therefore the caution should have been given. I don't think the problem is in the writing, but the reasoning. Our colleague's mistake (in the eyes of the observer) was failing to recognize the challenge as reckless. But that is not a mistake in law, but a mistake in judgment. It would only be a mistake in law if @Eddie recognized the challenge as reckless and still failed to give the caution. (I know nothing about England standards, but failing an assessment because of one reckless challenge seems ridiculous to me.)

Then why mention SPA at all?

 

[RustyRef]

There's been a big move in England over the past five years to try to move grass roots assessments as they were then, which were to critique the referee and find flaws, to it being more of a referee development approach. Observers are encouraged now at those levels to try to see themselves as referee developers rather than referee assessors, and indeed it is quite common now for observers to speak to referees at half time which would never have happened in the past.

To mark a referee down at 7-6 for one potential missed caution is just wrong.

 

[bester]

Observer may not have knew the law and just found a way to justify his view it was a yellow card.
Had this humdinger shortly after the law change for non-yellows for SPA resulting in a penalty kick.
'
Correct judgement and interpretation for stopping a promising attack. Yellow Card
Offence.


As a follow up to the penalty award in the 78th minute, whilst our post-match discussions
agreed it was not a clear cut goal scoring opportunity but did stop a promising attack, the
attempt to gain the ball by the home number 5 failed, and he should have been cautioned for
the recklessness of the challenge.
'


Observer went through process and we agreed it was a SPA offence, then explained to him why didn't caution . Was a 'missed' second yellow as well, an 8 for application of law turned into a 6.5.

Wouldn't have minded but the observer had agreed it was a careless challenge in the debrief. He's even seemed to have written it up as a missed SPA then obviously checked the law before the report came back a week late.

 

[Eddie]

Got my report back for this weekend (different observer!), and got an above standard on all points and an overall above standard for a challenging match. I’m delighted and hopefully it’ll cancel out last weeks rating- if last weeks isn’t changed.

Assuming that’s my last assessment, is it just a case of waiting until the end of the season now? I’ve already done the theory exam but not too sure whether or not there’s a fitness test for 7-6?

 

[Russell Jones]

Got my report back for this weekend (different observer!), and got an above standard on all points and an overall above standard for a challenging match. I’m delighted and hopefully it’ll cancel out last weeks rating- if last weeks isn’t changed.

Assuming that’s my last assessment, is it just a case of waiting until the end of the season now? I’ve already done the theory exam but not too sure whether or not there’s a fitness test for 7-6?

Well done!

If that does turn out to be your last assessment, then yes it is now a waiting game. With regard to the overall promotion scheme, whilst counties differ in their approach (on this and many other things!), typically you will probably need to attend a promotion workshop, including a LOTG test (may well be held virtually for obvious reasons). There's certainly no national requirement for a fitness test at your level, that starts when attempting 5 to 4

 

[Eddie]

Well done!

If that does turn out to be your last assessment, then yes it is now a waiting game. With regard to the overall promotion scheme, whilst counties differ in their approach (on this and many other things!), typically you will probably need to attend a promotion workshop, including a LOTG test (may well be held virtually for obvious reasons). There's certainly no national requirement for a fitness test at your level, that starts when attempting 5 to 4

Thanks Russell,

I’ve completed the LOTG test...got one question wrong on advantage funnily enough! I may be wrong but I think club marks come into consideration so it’s probably a case of getting through the season then if there’s no physical test.

 

[Justylove]

Thanks Russell,

I’ve completed the LOTG test...got one question wrong on advantage funnily enough! I may be wrong but I think club marks come into consideration so it’s probably a case of getting through the season then if there’s no physical test.

7-6 shouldn't include club marks.

Assuming you have met the requirements of games and observations, should be a formality.

 

[Big Cat]

Thanks Russell,

I’ve completed the LOTG test...got one question wrong on advantage funnily enough! I may be wrong but I think club marks come into consideration so it’s probably a case of getting through the season then if there’s no physical test.

With one assessment indicating 'above' on all three competencies, I'd say you're home and hosed. Your 'below standard' tale of woe was insane
Like has been said, the CFA's are looking for reasons to promote 7-to-6 so I'd say you're home and hosed, although I had 4 assessments so you may get another (given how early we are in the season!)

 

[Eddie]

With one assessment indicating 'above' on all three competencies, I'd say you're home and hosed. Your 'below standard' tale of woe was insane
Like has been said, the CFA's are looking for reasons to promote 7-to-6 so I'd say you're home and hosed, although I had 4 assessments so you may get another (given how early we are in the season!)

Yeah I’ve got a 4th this weekend, which isn’t a problem. I raised the ‘below’ with the observer appointment officer and he backed the assessor saying if I fall short on application of law, expect to be marked down.

It didn’t matter to him that I’d said I didn’t think I was wrong on application of law but there you go!

Ultimately i don’t think it’s going to have an impact on my promotion prospects, which was my concern. Extra assessments is a plus as I’m happy to get all the feedback I can.

 

[Big Cat]

Yeah I’ve got a 4th this weekend, which isn’t a problem. I raised the ‘below’ with the observer appointment officer and he backed the assessor saying if I fall short on application of law, expect to be marked down.

It didn’t matter to him that I’d said I didn’t think I was wrong on application of law but there you go!

Ultimately i don’t think it’s going to have an impact on my promotion prospects, which was my concern. Extra assessments is a plus as I’m happy to get all the feedback I can.

Got to remember... most of these Observers are not on RefChat, so hardly surprising they're not as clued up as they might be

 

[Eddie]

Got to remember... most of these Observers are not on RefChat, so hardly surprising they're not as clued up as they might be

Haha maybe that’s it mate! I say replace a VAR pitch side monitor with a ‘refchat’ monitor while we’re at it.

 

[one]

Haha maybe that’s it mate! I say replace a VAR pitch side monitor with a ‘refchat’ monitor while we’re at it.

Best idea I've heard. Create quick poll on refchat and everone has 30 seconds to vote. Much faster than the current VAR process.

 

[QuaverRef]

Got my report back for this weekend (different observer!), and got an above standard on all points and an overall above standard for a challenging match. I’m delighted and hopefully it’ll cancel out last weeks rating- if last weeks isn’t changed.

Assuming that’s my last assessment, is it just a case of waiting until the end of the season now? I’ve already done the theory exam but not too sure whether or not there’s a fitness test for 7-6?

Well done!

If that does turn out to be your last assessment, then yes it is now a waiting game. With regard to the overall promotion scheme, whilst counties differ in their approach (on this and many other things!), typically you will probably need to attend a promotion workshop, including a LOTG test (may well be held virtually for obvious reasons). There's certainly no national requirement for a fitness test at your level, that starts when attempting 5 to 4

Check with your RDO if there is one so you can begin to prepare and not be caught out if required to do one. It’s certainly not a national requirement, but some counties do have them. I’m part of the Somerset FA and we have to do one for every promotion, 7-6 included

 

[Eddie]

Check with your RDO if there is one so you can begin to prepare and not be caught out if required to do one. It’s certainly not a national requirement, but some counties do have them. I’m part of the Somerset FA and we have to do one for every promotion, 7-6 included

Good advice. He got in touch today to say I’d met the criteria from my assessments (had a 4th and got another above standard), he only asked I send him the matches i officiate in for the remainder of this season, come the end of April...so it doesn’t sound like it but I’ll confirm anyway.