RefSix

Assessment for lvl 5

nel

New Member
#1
So I got my first assessment back for level 5. Got a score of 73. Was wondering what would be a decent score for promotion
 

lincs22

Supply League Observer
Staff member
Observer/Tutor
#2
Not a bad starting mark. Read what the development points are and act on them, rather that worry about the mark.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#3
So I got my first assessment back for level 5. Got a score of 73. Was wondering what would be a decent score for promotion
I also got a 73 score 7-to-6
Above Standard on Match Control & AOL, Standard Expected P&M
Might have expected a higher score given the Competency Assessments and comments. Doubt it matters, i was very happy with the assessment
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#4
Still don't understand how or why you are getting marks out of 100 for 7-6 and 6-5 observations. its a national scheme and the only permissible grades are well below standard through to well above standard. There's nothing in there to support a numerical mark until you go from 5 to 4.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#5
Still don't understand how or why you are getting marks out of 100 for 7-6 and 6-5 observations. its a national scheme and the only permissible grades are well below standard through to well above standard. There's nothing in there to support a numerical mark until you go from 5 to 4.
We were told that well below and well above are no more
They've simplified it to below, expected and above
Why have five categories when three can achieve the same thing without unduly demotivating anyone?
The numerical mark is presumably an equivalent methodology to that used 5-to-4, only on fewer competencies. I'm inclined to think that the range of achievable scores is quite narrow. Who knows why the score is given. I agree that it's unnecessary from the candidate's perspective
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#6
On another note, I don't get the 'degree of difficulty' rating. What's the point of having 'Challenging' or 'Very Challenging' if those categories are rarely used. I had a threatening player hauled out of the back row of the spectator stand, contributing towards 4 yellows and a red in a Saturday Intermediate CountyC game; yet it was rated 'Normal' for 7-to-6
I thought it was all quite challenging! :bite:
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#7
We were told that well below and well above are no more
They've simplified it to below, expected and above
Why have five categories when three can achieve the same thing without unduly demotivating anyone?
The numerical mark is presumably an equivalent methodology to that used 5-to-4, only on fewer competencies. I'm inclined to think that the range of achievable scores is quite narrow. Who knows why the score is given. I agree that it's unnecessary from the candidate's perspective
Seems like your CFA are making it up and deviating from FA policy. The FA only recently resent out the guidelines and form and there is no mention of a numerical mark and all five competencies are still on the form.
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#8
Seems like your CFA are making it up and deviating from FA policy. The FA only recently resent out the guidelines and form and there is no mention of a numerical mark and all five competencies are still on the form.
It would be most unlike football to be inconsistent ❌
Remind me to post my cr4p scores on here, as and when they happen
 

RobOda

RefChat Addict
#9
On another note, I don't get the 'degree of difficulty' rating. What's the point of having 'Challenging' or 'Very Challenging' if those categories are rarely used. I had a threatening player hauled out of the back row of the spectator stand, contributing towards 4 yellows and a red in a Saturday Intermediate CountyC game; yet it was rated 'Normal' for 7-to-6
I thought it was all quite challenging! :bite:
Weird one that.

Mine has three challenges: Normal, Difficult and Very difficult.

Last season I had 1 normal, 4 difficult matches for my assessments. :eek:
 
Top