A&H

Assessed on Saturday! Mark vs. narrative?

J

Jordan Lockwood

New Member
Level 6 Referee
My assessment from Saturday....

Slightly disappointed with the mark considering what's written in the narrative. I was assessed twice last year (7-6) and got an 82 and a 79.

How does 71 compare with an 'average' assessment?

:)
 

Attachments

  • Assessment 160814.docx
    158.3 KB · Views: 100
The Referee Store
Forgot to add, I didn't actually caution anybody for dissent in the game. I cautioned 'red 3' for his third foul i.e. persistent infringement. Obviously he was arguing with me about the caution, so maybe that's why the assessor thought it was for dissent, but in one section his narrative says I took no action against red 3 and the next section says I correctly cautioned red 3 lol.
 
Coming through all garbled? I am looking at it on my iphone though so that might be the issue.
 
It was sent to me in rtf format, but wouldn't let me upload here so I changed to .doc and .docx - maybe that's causing an issue.

Bloody Norah!
 
Uploaded as 3 separate pictures instead....not ideal, but hey!
 

Attachments

  • Ass 1.jpg
    Ass 1.jpg
    199.8 KB · Views: 53
  • Ass 2.jpg
    Ass 2.jpg
    193.5 KB · Views: 44
  • Ass 3.jpg
    Ass 3.jpg
    151.9 KB · Views: 44
IMO it seems like a good assessment and I think that a 71 seems quite low, I don't know much about them so I will probably be wrong but I'd expect about a 73-75 for this type, I have no experience with assessments but I have mates who have had bad games and still picked up higher marks.

Did the assessor speak to you after the game? Because the caution with red 3 should've been cleared up in the quick conversation following the match, then there would be no confusion.

It sounds good though mate :)
 
Jordan,

A mark of 70 is the standard mark.

The marking criteria for a 6-5 assessment is different from that of a 7-6. So a high mark at lower levels is highly possible.

From what is written the mark corresponds with the wording. There is nothing special written to increase it over 3.5 (which is the standard mark). The required pass mark for 6-5 is an average of 70 across your assessment.
 
Unfortunately you start out at 72 and can go up or down from there. Currently a mark of 75 + represents an exceptional game. You could have ben marked up on fitness which would have gotten you to 72.
Unless you have a particularly challenging game it's hard to get much higher.
It might be worth dropping an e mail to your RDO about the persistent caution attach a copy of your caution form. Unlikely to change your mark but would make you feel better.
Did the assessor not do a debrief after the game. That's your chance to clarify the cautions with him.
 
Thanks guys!

He did mention that I didn't caution a player for persistence, but at the time I didn't realise he was talking about the one I actually had cautioned!

lincs22 said:
Jordan,

A mark of 70 is the standard mark.

The marking criteria for a 6-5 assessment is different from that of a 7-6. So a high mark at lower levels is highly possible.

From what is written the mark corresponds with the wording. There is nothing special written to increase it over 3.5 (which is the standard mark). The required pass mark for 6-5 is an average of 70 across your assessment.
Click to expand...

I'm obviously happy with the narrative, as all I was pulled on was my signals, and if a supply league assessor is telling me that the corresponding mark sounds right, then I'll accept it with thanks! I'm not 'moaning' about it, as I said, because I got 82 and 79 last year, this particular assessment made me feel like I'd had a really bad game when I didn't think I had!

:) :)
 
Darren Amor said:
Currently a mark of 75 + represents an exceptional game.
Click to expand...

As an assessor said to me, what a ridiculous marking system where 100% will never happen and yet '75 is exceptional', to use Darren's words above.

surely 100% is exceptional, 75% isn't even close.

still, at least it doesn't go up to 11 out of 10 ;)
 
I think about that concept all the time and I'm a bit on the fence!

On one hand, 75 for a 'perfect' performance on an average game doesn't seem fair, but on the other hand, it does differentiate between the referees who then go on to have an excellent performance on an extremely challenging game.

The luck of the draw I suppose - 3 easy games = 3 average assessments, whereas someone who gets 3 challenging games is going to come out on top, even if the referee who had the average games would have handled the challenging games as well, or even better.
 
At the start of the last marking season, March '13, the 4 promotion candidates going 5-4 around here all landed a mark in the 80's. Come the new football season none of us got above a 74. The marking scheme was reset so you can't compare season to season.
I'd take 70, 71 as ok 72 as good 73 as great.
 
Seems crazy to say on a 0 to 100 scale, 75 is exceptional. There really are some crazy ideas running through the heads of people running things in football.
 
Ha ha touché, we are led by some baffling stupid officers but equally by some very good ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top