Assessment
- Thread starter Aled
- Start date
Small point, if players cannot wear different colours, shouldn't you be wear completely black under shorts?
While that is the law, you having colour would make it harder for you to get players to change.
Also, as you move up the ladder, referees may object to you wearing colours as it could weaken their match control.
No idea of your marking structure, it is totally different to assessments in England.
Very little detail in your assessment, mainly statements.
SM
The avuncular one
School boy error mate.
I also have no idea as this is the first time I have seen this type of assessment. However, as you seem quite chirpy 8.6?
I've already brought that up
Debrief was really good, all very positive with the advise, didn't expect a 7.3, more 8.3 I thought
Mewcenary
Well-Known Member
If the intention is to reflect that tackles that 'endangered the safety of an opponent' were not appropriately sanctioned, then that would explain the lower than expected mark. Failure to apply Law correctly. However, the wording of the assessment is poor in terms of getting that message across.
The advice on positioning is poor. You never, EVER want to be on the goal-line for throw-ins. You would be quite right to remain opposite the taker of the throw-in in that situation... you don't want to be invading the space where the players are going to play. It's easy to adjust position with the ball in flight if required.
The advice on positioning is poor. You never, EVER want to be on the goal-line for throw-ins. You would be quite right to remain opposite the taker of the throw-in in that situation... you don't want to be invading the space where the players are going to play. It's easy to adjust position with the ball in flight if required.
With the comments about a positive de-brief, the mark and the comments in the report, I would suspect that in England the assessor would be in for "re-training" (or further assistance with report writing - as the FA describe it).
I agree with @Padfoot "endanger the safety of an opponent" is a dismissal. Any assessor saying that what your report says, about awarding correct free-kicks and not saying that you missed a dismissal is seriously wrong. I assume @Brian Hamilton would also be holding his head in his hands at such a comment.
If you are going to quote parts of law, then you use them to support your comments/marks, not wreck your own report's credibility!
I haven't read the report as the images are too small for my eyes (10th assessment of the season tomorrow).
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Reading the report I was guessing 8.0 / 8.1 . So the mark does seem extremely harsh.
However treating it purely as 'developmental feedback' (which I know is difficult when you're confused / pissed off with the mark), a) there's loads of great positives you should feel really proud of and keep demonstrating and b) there's a couple of clear development areas which would typically be picked up at 7-6 assessments, let alone 5-4 .
Chin up mate
However treating it purely as 'developmental feedback' (which I know is difficult when you're confused / pissed off with the mark), a) there's loads of great positives you should feel really proud of and keep demonstrating and b) there's a couple of clear development areas which would typically be picked up at 7-6 assessments, let alone 5-4 .
Chin up mate