Attacking Free Kicks

[one]

the law clearly says that the position of the hands doesn’t necessarily dictate a handball!

Which means the position of the hand could dictate a handball. I think we have been here before

Very difficult for the observer to give credit for this if he can't see evidence of "effective management", so best to exaggerate it to gain credit.

I have seen a lot of good advice from you but I don't consider this one of them . You referee the game the best way it benefits the game and the teams as a whole not in a way it benefits you (gain the most credit) and your observer. As an observer, I am willing to listen to and accept how the referee has said he has managed the wall. If it is a credible method, unless I have seen avoidance to the contrary of what he has said, he will gain due credit.

 

[one]

These have been coming handy in recent times. Part of out national guidelines. Note the 8 steps.

 

[Russell Jones]

To justify the higher echelons of refereeing, I can't help think that many of these 'competencies' don't really matter too much. To some degree, decent sportsmen rely on talent whilst their less able counterparts flounder in the detail of technique. I'd wager a bet there's some capable refs out there being distracted by competencies, devised by those with inferior ability. In my experience of watching the game at all levels, the frequency of mistakes doesn't seem to diminish at the same rate that attendance increases. So the competencies only seem to tick boxes without shaping quality match officials. I'm not referring to professional refs as they're just following orders to keep their jobs

I think I disagree with both points you make above

Whilst no system is perfect, I think the current competency based system for L4 to L2B referees is in pretty good shape. It gives disproportionate weight to the three things that really matter to all concerned (AOL, Decision Making and Match Control). It is clear to both referee and Observer what is expected and the competencies are varied enough to account for a variety of different match situations. And certainly I feel like my abilities have been positively shaped by the input I've received going from L7 to L4 (and whilst at L4).

As for the 'frequency of mistakes not diminishing at more senior levels', you've got to bear in mind that the games at higher levels are faster, more intense and way more pressurised. Dealing with thousands of fans rather than tens of them is a whole new ball game. And throw in the knowledge that your actions will be captured and minutely dissected on video. Even if the frequency of mistakes doesn't decrease (which I'd challenge .. the mistakes are just more in the spotlight) then the officials are still way better as they are dealing with more difficult environments

 

[Big Cat]

I think I disagree with both points you make above

Whilst no system is perfect, I think the current competency based system for L4 to L2B referees is in pretty good shape. It gives disproportionate weight to the three things that really matter to all concerned (AOL, Decision Making and Match Control). It is clear to both referee and Observer what is expected and the competencies are varied enough to account for a variety of different match situations. And certainly I feel like my abilities have been positively shaped by the input I've received going from L7 to L4 (and whilst at L4).

As for the 'frequency of mistakes not diminishing at more senior levels', you've got to bear in mind that the games at higher levels are faster, more intense and way more pressurised. Dealing with thousands of fans rather than tens of them is a whole new ball game. And throw in the knowledge that your actions will be captured and minutely dissected on video. Even if the frequency of mistakes doesn't decrease (which I'd challenge .. the mistakes are just more in the spotlight) then the officials are still way better as they are dealing with more difficult environments

I'm glad you replied to my fishing! Sometimes my posts/hypotheses are intended to get a reaction. I've called it as I see it, looking from the outside in. Unless I get replies to the contrary, my viewpoint will remain in tact. I'm conscious I might take a different stance in a few years time, yet I doubt that my assessment is entirely wrong. Another way of looking at the 'mistakes to attendance' ratio, is that a Level 5 hopefully won't melt when making mistakes in front of 100 spectators, whereas a Level 7 probably would. This analogy would work for any two levels. Yet the number of mistakes remains significant, regardless of the level and for lots of reasons, but a senior referee will be better placed to cope with this. Senior refs also have far greater attn. to detail with pre & post match duties, as well as on field procedural stuff; not to mention H&S and other considerations towards the top of the pyramid

 

[RustyRef]

Which means the position of the hand could dictate a handball. I think we have been here before


I have seen a lot of good advice from you but I don't consider this one of them . You referee the game the best way it benefits the game and the teams as a whole not in a way it benefits you (gain the most credit) and your observer. As an observer, I am willing to listen to and accept how the referee has said he has managed the wall. If it is a credible method, unless I have seen avoidance to the contrary of what he has said, he will gain due credit.

Difficulty is you have to give timed match examples of how his actions have provided a positive impact to the game, without these the marks awarded or deducted for that section are discarded. Difficult to do that if he hasn't done anything visible, even if that is just pacing out the wall. I suspect this performance competency probably gets used more for development advice rather than a strength as it is much more obvious when it goes wrong than when it has gone right.

Many of the PCs at those levels are about visibly demonstrating things and don't necessarily suit a referee who takes a back seat and is invisible. That said it was the same with the old competencies. I had to learn to be much more showy about talking to players after advantage as I kept getting told I hadn't when I actually had, albeit quietly. There were other things where I had to become more noticeable as well, which wasn't necessarily in keeping with my refereeing style.

 

[Big Cat]

On the subject of advantage, i find it much easier to extend arms during the advantage, followed by a shout of 'advantage has been played' once the advantage has ended
But then I understand that the competencies teach advantage differently depending on the Level
Great!

 

[one]

Difficulty is you have to give timed match examples of how his actions have provided a positive impact to the game, without these the marks awarded or deducted for that section are discarded. Difficult to do that if he hasn't done anything visible, even if that is just pacing out the wall. I suspect this performance competency probably gets used more for development advice rather than a strength as it is much more obvious when it goes wrong than when it has gone right.

Many of the PCs at those levels are about visibly demonstrating things and don't necessarily suit a referee who takes a back seat and is invisible. That said it was the same with the old competencies. I had to learn to be much more showy about talking to players after advantage as I kept getting told I hadn't when I actually had, albeit quietly. There were other things where I had to become more noticeable as well, which wasn't necessarily in keeping with my refereeing style.

I get what you are saying. My point is not to just rely on what is visible but also on what the referee tells you in the debrief. And if any doubt, you ask them a subtle question in the debrief and take their explanation into account. The assessor observer is often 50 - 100 yards away from the incident with only one certain angle. It is literally impossible to see and hear everything.

For example, I see/think a referee pays no attention to defenders standing over the ball when walking the 10 yards". In the debrief, "in the 56th minute you had CFK and there were a couple of defenders standing over the ball. Explain to me your thought process".
Response one: "As I was walking past them I told them guys its on the whistle, no need to be there, come with me. Then I gave them some time and space to comply. They did move after a couple of seconds so I didn't have to take any actions." My report will make mention of following correct process.
Response 2: "I thought if just get back and wait long enough they would eventually come back". My report then says R has to actively deal with the nearest problem rather than being passive.

As I said, I don't want referees to change the way they do things just because they are being assessed/observed or just to make themselves look good. If being animated and "visible" is part of their normal routine then all good but not because they don't want to miss out on an assessment competency mark.