Careful how you answer observer questions

[bester]

Did you appeal it, especially if you had assistants that heard the debrief? An observer can't penalise you for being incorrect in law if he's agreed with, or not challenged, your explanation in the debrief.

Was told there was no point at the time (5 years ago) by the observer coordinator and a referee who also observed said they will only go on what's written in the report and debrief would be hearsay.
Bit naive in my first season as a level 4.
Perhaps not the best person to have asked.


His eyes lit up when I said I thought it was SPA. Less so when I explained why no caution.
I suspect he didn't know the law change, and had already decided it was he was going to mark me down for.

 

[one]

Wasn’t really a trick. And the observer I have known for 13 years and has given me hugely valuable advice and looked after me with some terrible beginner mistakes. We have disagreed on a few things but he’a a genuine observer. His speciality is being very clear on yellow cards and missed yellow cards!

So, this is not a slight on him. The pay for these is also dismal! Really is a PSA

It sounds like this happened due you not having the awareness at the time (due to intensity of the game and so many things running in your head) of the consequence of just agreeing with your observer. You have already identified this in your thread title. But also because of him not following best communication practices.

I have a feeling the reason he included it in the report is because he thought you saying it was reckless later was just an afterthought and you actually gave it for SPA at the time.

My thoughts on communication styles:

"I saw 3 yellows and a red. Have I missed anything?" Good
"I have 3 yellows and one dogso. Correct?" Not so good

"What minute was the first yellow and what was it for (or ask for all sanctions)?" Good
"Was the yellow in the 13th for reckless?" Not so good

(after referee saying yellow was for reckless)
"Why did you think it was reckless?" Good
"Did you think it was reckless because studs were showing?" Not so good

"Run me through your positioning on the CFK just before HT" Good
"For the CFK before half time did you stand there because you wanted to get a good view of XYZ?" Not so good

 

[JamesL]

On misleading leading questions reminds me of an old observation report.

Season after law changed to no yellow card for SPA if it was a careless challenge and a penalty was awarded.

Had an incident where the observer enquired whether it was DOGSO.

Explained why it wasn't covering defenders etc.

Told him it was SPA but due to the law change as it was a careless challenge and a penalty was awarded I didn't show the second yellow card.

Report comes back, 1150 PM on the Friday following the game.
First mention of it being a reckless challenge.


Appropriate disciplinary sanctions.

"The consequence of the penalty kick award and (unissued) caution in the 78th minute for the home number 5, given this was his second serious offence, should have resulted in his
dismissal from the field of play.

Correct judgement and interpretation for stopping a promising attack. Yellow Card
Offence.

"As a follow up to the penalty award in the 78th minute, whilst our post-match discussions agreed it was not a clear cut goal scoring opportunity but did stop a promising attack, the attempt to gain the ball by the home number 5 failed, and he should have been cautioned for the recklessness of the challenge."

Application of law goes from a probable 8 to a 6.5.

This is wrong and not in.accordsnce with the observer report writing protocol. The observer must give their opinion on the accuracy of the decisions and confirm if they are supported and if not why not.
Certainly the case now anyway

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

Was told there was no point at the time (5 years ago) by the observer coordinator and a referee who also observed said they will only go on what's written in the report and debrief would be hearsay.
Bit naive in my first season as a level 4.
Perhaps not the best person to have asked.


His eyes lit up when I said I thought it was SPA. Less so when I explained why no caution.
I suspect he didn't know the law change, and had already decided it was he was going to mark me down for.

The method of handling appeals has improved greatly in the last five years.
They are now considered by three members of the Appeals Panel, who receive the appeal and the Observer Report via e-mail to allow each member to consider and reach their conclusions before the three get together on Zoom or Teams to arrive at an outcome.
Additionally, Observers are updated on law and interpretation changes on a regular basis, and their laws knowledge is tested regularly.

 

[JamesL]

The method of handling appeals has improved greatly in the last five years.
They are now considered by three members of the Appeals Panel, who receive the appeal and the Observer Report via e-mail to allow each member to consider and reach their conclusions before the three get together on Zoom or Teams to arrive at an outcome.
Additionally, Observers are updated on law and interpretation changes on a regular basis, and their laws knowledge is tested regularly.

It's still not appealable though.
You can only appeal the written text is wrong in law or significantly doesn't reflect the mark awarded.
You can only use video in exceptional circumstances and only for match changing situations.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

It's still not appealable though.
You can only appeal the written text is wrong in law or significantly doesn't reflect the mark awarded.
You can only use video in exceptional circumstances and only for match changing situations.

True, but @bester could appeal on the basis of the report being wrong in law.

 

[JamesL]

True, but @bester could appeal on the basis of the report being wrong in law.

You could have a go, but whilst not written as clearly as one would like it refers to the "recklessness of the challenge" so would potentially be not upheld with operational advice to be more clear with the opinion and expected outcome of the observer.

Would depend on the panel, I guess

 

[Kes]

Interesting thread.
As an observer myself, I simply write down the number of the player cautioned/dismissed and the time. Of course I then scribble down my own brief interpretation of what happened and any salient point relating to it eg. referee's positioning/proximity/angle etc.
During the debrief, after confirming the score, my next words are along the lines of:
"Okay, I've got 5 cautions written down here and the times, can we just confirm what each one was for please?"
No ambiguity, no assumption, I get the ref to tell me (after all it's their decision) what they did. I then (99.9% of the time) agree/support. We can then discuss the whys and the wherefores.
In the OPs scenario, I'd have queried whether the caution code should be reckless or for SPA whilst in the debrief and nailed down any agreement/disagreement before leaving.
The golden rule for the debrief is that nothing that wasn't discussed/mentioned/chewed over in the debrief should appear in the subsequent report.
The question I have for @santa sangria is, did the Observer actually dock you a mark for AOL due to that misunderstanding?

 

[santa sangria]

Interesting thread.
As an observer myself, I simply write down the number of the player cautioned/dismissed and the time. Of course I then scribble down my own brief interpretation of what happened and any salient point relating to it eg. referee's positioning/proximity/angle etc.
During the debrief, after confirming the score, my next words are along the lines of:
"Okay, I've got 5 cautions written down here and the times, can we just confirm what each one was for please?"
No ambiguity, no assumption, I get the ref to tell me (after all it's their decision) what they did. I then (99.9% of the time) agree/support. We can then discuss the whys and the wherefores.
In the OPs scenario, I'd have queried whether the caution code should be reckless or for SPA whilst in the debrief and nailed down any agreement/disagreement before leaving.
The golden rule for the debrief is that nothing that wasn't discussed/mentioned/chewed over in the debrief should appear in the subsequent report.
The question I have for @santa sangria is, did the Observer actually dock you a mark for AOL due to that misunderstanding?

Yes. And I am a bit hacked off about it but I can’t cause a fuss. It’s not worth it. I got an 8.2. Watching the match back could have even been an 8.4 as was difficult. But easy 8.3. I gave two correct penalties, movement was really good, other cards were good. This one advantage didn’t accrue so wasn’t great but wasn’t “bad” either.