Assessment 2- 5 to 4
- Thread starter Matt
- Start date
1. 1. Application of Law:
This was a competitive game and you can be commended for applying the ‘Laws of the Game’ consistently throughout the match, to both teams (despite players from both teams singling you out in an unfair manner).
You displayed respect to the players and allowed the game to flow in a constructive manner the players weren’t as quick to show you respect (took them three-quarters of the game to play hard, play fair, play the whistle) as they wanted to question every decision you made.
Instances that were in your favour included the two injuries on which you checked-out:
In the 36th minute, you didn’t need to stop the game for a hand injury but when you stopped the game to give a free-kick to WI, you checked a WI player with a hand injury – they made a substitution, which you correctly dealt with. The free-kick had been correctly awarded but you needed to have a firm word with the CS #4.
In the 78th minute, you correctly stopped the game for a head injury.
Two level 5 criteria that were in your favour were, when after ‘dealing’ with persistent misconduct you involved the captain in line with the Respect programme and you correctly penalised CS (72nd minute) when they took a throw-in incorrectly and awarded it to WI.
2. Match Control:
This game was well managed because you were tolerant, but fair, and allowed competitive challenges but your authority was not undermined. I enjoyed the game because it was not a stop-start affair. Well done.
Throughout the game I felt that you demonstrated a positive attitude and body language – displaying confidence and competence (you didn’t need to stop the game / blow your whistle for almost the first ten minutes, indicating that you didn’t need to do more than you had to – although after that you imposed your authority without being the ‘centre of attention’).
Offending players were isolated when you warned / had a firm word with them and it was good to see you walk towards offending players and meet them ‘half-way’ rather than order them to come to you.
3. Positioning, Fitness & Work Rate:
As I said in the after-match briefing, I felt that you sustained mobility and movement throughout the game to ensure proximity to play and you demonstrated an ability to change pace but there were occasions when I felt you were too far from play to obtain the best viewing angle.
As an example, I think sometimes you would be better placed if you were 20 yards from play rather than 40 yards.
As you explained, it may be that a chest infection / calf strain that may have hindered you to meet, fully, these objectives.
4. Alertness & Awareness, Including management of stoppages:
You displayed a concentration on and awareness of all matters both on and off the field of play and you showed an empathy with the game, engaging with the players and not being fussy over trivialities.
You used a trailing eye-type instance in dealing with the hand injury and you correctly managed the requested substitutions.
5. Communication:
Your signals were clear and decisive and you responded to players’ questions within the context of the game being calm and polite but maintaining authority.
It was more noticeable in the second half of this game that you conversed with players in a calm and effective manner.
6. Teamwork:
Both teams provided you with assistants; you were seen to provide them with pre-match instructions and thank them after the game.
During the game, you were seen to acknowledge your assistants.
7. Advantage:
In the first ten minutes you played an advantage but there was no signal – I thought you had forgotten about it. However, I recorded seven other occasions when you played an advantage and communicated, with arms and voice, the use of advantage in a clear and confident manner – well done.
Strengths
1
Application of Law
2
Match Control
7
Advantage
Development
3
Positioning
5
Communication
This was a competitive game and you can be commended for applying the ‘Laws of the Game’ consistently throughout the match, to both teams (despite players from both teams singling you out in an unfair manner).
You displayed respect to the players and allowed the game to flow in a constructive manner the players weren’t as quick to show you respect (took them three-quarters of the game to play hard, play fair, play the whistle) as they wanted to question every decision you made.
Instances that were in your favour included the two injuries on which you checked-out:
In the 36th minute, you didn’t need to stop the game for a hand injury but when you stopped the game to give a free-kick to WI, you checked a WI player with a hand injury – they made a substitution, which you correctly dealt with. The free-kick had been correctly awarded but you needed to have a firm word with the CS #4.
In the 78th minute, you correctly stopped the game for a head injury.
Two level 5 criteria that were in your favour were, when after ‘dealing’ with persistent misconduct you involved the captain in line with the Respect programme and you correctly penalised CS (72nd minute) when they took a throw-in incorrectly and awarded it to WI.
2. Match Control:
This game was well managed because you were tolerant, but fair, and allowed competitive challenges but your authority was not undermined. I enjoyed the game because it was not a stop-start affair. Well done.
Throughout the game I felt that you demonstrated a positive attitude and body language – displaying confidence and competence (you didn’t need to stop the game / blow your whistle for almost the first ten minutes, indicating that you didn’t need to do more than you had to – although after that you imposed your authority without being the ‘centre of attention’).
Offending players were isolated when you warned / had a firm word with them and it was good to see you walk towards offending players and meet them ‘half-way’ rather than order them to come to you.
3. Positioning, Fitness & Work Rate:
As I said in the after-match briefing, I felt that you sustained mobility and movement throughout the game to ensure proximity to play and you demonstrated an ability to change pace but there were occasions when I felt you were too far from play to obtain the best viewing angle.
As an example, I think sometimes you would be better placed if you were 20 yards from play rather than 40 yards.
As you explained, it may be that a chest infection / calf strain that may have hindered you to meet, fully, these objectives.
4. Alertness & Awareness, Including management of stoppages:
You displayed a concentration on and awareness of all matters both on and off the field of play and you showed an empathy with the game, engaging with the players and not being fussy over trivialities.
You used a trailing eye-type instance in dealing with the hand injury and you correctly managed the requested substitutions.
5. Communication:
Your signals were clear and decisive and you responded to players’ questions within the context of the game being calm and polite but maintaining authority.
It was more noticeable in the second half of this game that you conversed with players in a calm and effective manner.
6. Teamwork:
Both teams provided you with assistants; you were seen to provide them with pre-match instructions and thank them after the game.
During the game, you were seen to acknowledge your assistants.
7. Advantage:
In the first ten minutes you played an advantage but there was no signal – I thought you had forgotten about it. However, I recorded seven other occasions when you played an advantage and communicated, with arms and voice, the use of advantage in a clear and confident manner – well done.
Strengths
1
Application of Law
2
Match Control
7
Advantage
Development
3
Positioning
5
Communication
Poorly written report with little or nothing to develop you. Also if this is a promotion to L4 why is he referring to L5 criteria?
Don't understand why Communication is stated as a development area yet there is nothing but positive comment made in the report. I cannot believe you had 7 instances where a true advantage resulted after a careless or reckless challenge. It seems more like the team retained possession, not had an advantage. Also if players are constantly challenging your authority, why was a caution not issued for dissent to stop it off?
I would also offer some of my own advice ... if you have an injury, don't referee ... especially if you know you are going to be assessed. Only the mark has helped you here. The standard of the report is poor.
Don't understand why Communication is stated as a development area yet there is nothing but positive comment made in the report. I cannot believe you had 7 instances where a true advantage resulted after a careless or reckless challenge. It seems more like the team retained possession, not had an advantage. Also if players are constantly challenging your authority, why was a caution not issued for dissent to stop it off?
I would also offer some of my own advice ... if you have an injury, don't referee ... especially if you know you are going to be assessed. Only the mark has helped you here. The standard of the report is poor.
Unfortunately, Brian is completely correct - this is a poorly written report for you to develop from. Personally, I like to specific a little more in the development boxes and link back to comments made in the main body (but in this assessment - there are none).
Also, Brian is correct about refereeing when injured. At the next level, you will have NAR's and a quicker, better standard of football. If you cannot keep up with them, your match control will suffer. As you are assessed on approx 50% of your L4 games, your fitness (or issues with it) will be noted in the assessment and the last thing you need to get low marks on is fitness and positioning as this really restricted your ability to move to L3.
@Brian Hamilton - I suspect that the advantage was called for not for advantage, but as the avoidance of the need to make a decision (seen it many times) and they retained procession. People think it gets them marks....
Also, Brian is correct about refereeing when injured. At the next level, you will have NAR's and a quicker, better standard of football. If you cannot keep up with them, your match control will suffer. As you are assessed on approx 50% of your L4 games, your fitness (or issues with it) will be noted in the assessment and the last thing you need to get low marks on is fitness and positioning as this really restricted your ability to move to L3.
@Brian Hamilton - I suspect that the advantage was called for not for advantage, but as the avoidance of the need to make a decision (seen it many times) and they retained procession. People think it gets them marks....
Yet the frequent advantage is cited as a strength!
Monotone Whistle
Well-Known Member
Only for @Matt for getting such a poorly written assessment.You sound disappointed!
DanCohen17
Simply The Best
Fully agreed with Brian & Lincs. An extremely poorly worded assessment that served little-to-no benefit to the assessed referee. I give you a 100% guarantee that had that been an assessment at L4, it would be immediately sent for moderation!
@Brian Hamilton @lincs22 @DanCohen17 do you guys know what the system is for choosing referees to go for promotion to level 3 from level 4 because as far as I'm aware individual referees can't apply for it themselves. Is that right?
As far as I am aware, it is all done on a banding system. In short, the officials are marked by assessors and the clubs. The best performing referees are given AA, and the worst EE. At the end of the season, the AA's are generally promoted and the EE's are demoted (unless in their first season - in which they have a 'grace period'). I believe this system is carried on throughout the rest of the levels.
DanCohen17
Simply The Best
Pretty much this, yeah.
To be eligible for 4-3 promotion, you must do a minimum of 10 middles with a minimum of 4 assessments. You must then end in band A for assessors and band A for clubs (hence "AA"). Furthermore, your area must require enough L3 officials for you to be included (eg, if only 1 L3 is required in your area, but you're not top of AA, you won't be promoted)
You are allowed to reject L3 promotion, as a number of people do.
What @DanCohen17 said
Mewcenary
Well-Known Member
'AA' conquers all, essentially. From what I have observed, an 'AA' referee will always be promoted above an 'AB' referee -- the FA are looking for those with that overall top consistency. There can be an exception made for the referee who finishes #1 in assessments though - 'AB' can be enough there.
Much as club marks can be maligned, my personal experience is that there is a correlation between referees who do well in assessors and clubs, and those who do less well.
Much as club marks can be maligned, my personal experience is that there is a correlation between referees who do well in assessors and clubs, and those who do less well.
DanCohen17
Simply The Best
To a certain extent I agree. But you'll often find at L4 there are referees who are exceptional in the eyes of assessors but dreadful in the eyes of clubs and vice versa.
Club marks are about playing the system unfortunately. You win/lose club marks in London (there is a big split on this for North & South) in the boardroom after the game. Open your mouth, low marks. Sit quietly and answer chairman's questions with the answer he wants, high marks!
Mewcenary
Well-Known Member
These sorts of anomalies are rare. They tend to form in the early part of the marking season (due to only a handful of games being involved for a referee) but by the end, a pretty accurate picture is taken. The other reason this can happen is that a referee is officiating differently when NOT being assessed, but has not clicked that by doing that (e.g. by not cautioning to 'do a club a favour') they are damaging themselves in the eyes of the clubs.
As an example, I was 4th man on a game where a referee did the classic "Give a corner / Oops it's clearly not a corner / Find a free kick to the defence". It was very obvious. Did either club thank him for it? No. Both managers were chatting on the touchline and saying to each other that they were going to mark him down as a result.
Club marks do involve the whole package, which is why the FA have a "Manage the event" coaching theme in the senior game. I would never say you have to nod and agree in the boardroom. However, being open and honest is the way to go. When I've listened to clubs talking about the infamous "last week's referee" it is generally NOT about decisions (penalties and the like) but tends to be things like: "He was arrogant", "We couldn't talk to him", "He wouldn't admit he was wrong". You don't have to admit you were wrong if you genuinely don't believe that, but empathy for the club point of view is essential.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
And out of curiosity, this is the same system used to get you to level 2 hopefully?
