Can we see them if so how ? I’m curious.
Some referees are very dismissive of Club MarksCan we see them if so how ? I’m curious.
Thanks just curious as seen them mentioned a lot.Some referees are very dismissive of Club Marks
Paradoxically, focusing on them or trying to get good Club Marks, will inevitably lead to poor marks
In my experience, they are important when assessed over a period of time. They will usually influence your Ref Secretary when it comes to appointments (especially Cup Finals etc.) and I'd be concerned if my marks were crap
Don't let them distract you. Turn up, be courteous, referee your games with a combination of authority/empathy, but don't be demonstrative
Recognise dissent, apply the stepped approach if possible, deal with it as an absolute priority. Bad days are Learning Days, so no need to panic. Easy
In one of the leagues I work in the Ref Sec will send you your average mark every 12 games or so if you ask. They don't highlight individual games or clubs but it gives you an idea which way you are heading. There's always someone who will score you low because their team lost and they will blame the Ref because he gave a throw the wrong way etc......but with 12 games the average should reflect how people see you performing overall
For these types of statistics, the 'median score' is far and and away more useful than the 'mean score'. But I doubt many football people would know that, which is why I understand they use 'mean scores' for promotion (4 to 3 and above) (stand to be corrected). Which is pretty much what you've said with the ignoring the top/bottom 10% of scoresNever seen or asked for my club marks and I cant say I'm curious about them. But if club marks are being looked at from a analysis perspective then perhaps it would be prudent to take the top and bottom 10% away and give the average based on the rest. Get rid of the 1/10 because you gave a contested last min pen and the 10/10 the other team gave for awarding them the last min pen!
The median score is a pretty useless as a measure of performance. It is simply the middle value (or mean of the two middle values if there are an even number of marks) of an ordered list of numbers.For these types of statistics, the 'median score' is far and and away more useful than the 'mean score'. But I doubt many football people would know that, which is why I understand they use 'mean scores' for promotion (4 to 3 and above) (stand to be corrected). Which is pretty much what you've said with the ignoring the top/bottom 10% of scores
If we are interested in consistency then the standard deviation is what we should be using. A lower standard deviation would suggest a more consistent referee over a season (now that may be consistently bad, good or indifferent, the standard deviation won’t tell you which.)The median score is a pretty useless as a measure of performance. It is simply the middle value (or mean of the two middle values if there are an even number of marks) of an ordered list of numbers.
The mean on the other hand can give an indication of consistency but itself can be disproportionately affected by an outlier, i.e. a mark that is significantly divergent from the other marks in the data set. I suspect some very low marks "disappear" because of their outlier effect.
/justsayin
Thanks Jef. It was late and I could not remember the word deviationIf we are interested in consistency then the standard deviation is what we should be using. A lower standard deviation would suggest a more consistent referee over a season (now that may be consistently bad, good or indifferent, the standard deviation won’t tell you which.)
if, as I suspect, outliers will be more likely at the lower end of the data than the upper end, the both means and medians will be skewed downwards.
Probably the best combination to use (whilst keeping things (relatively) simple) is to use both the mean and standard deviation, both of which can easily be calculated by excel.
(As I write this, I am smiling to myself. It is analogous to so many of my lessons when the maths has been derailed by students chatting about football. Here the tables have been turned, and football chat has been usurped by maths, and that makes me happy!)
Very hard to skew 'median' once the sample size is into double figures. That's why it's a rock solid numberIf we are interested in consistency then the standard deviation is what we should be using. A lower standard deviation would suggest a more consistent referee over a season (now that may be consistently bad, good or indifferent, the standard deviation won’t tell you which.)
if, as I suspect, outliers will be more likely at the lower end of the data than the upper end, the both means and medians will be skewed downwards.
Probably the best combination to use (whilst keeping things (relatively) simple) is to use both the mean and standard deviation, both of which can easily be calculated by excel.
(As I write this, I am smiling to myself. It is analogous to so many of my lessons when the maths has been derailed by students chatting about football. Here the tables have been turned, and football chat has been usurped by maths, and that makes me happy!)
I think the term you are looking for is resistant, not rock solid. As for golf, it is a good walk spoiledVery hard to skew 'median' once the sample size is into double figures. That's why it's a rock solid number
They use the median in golf to calculate handicaps for that reason
The lockdown has clearly skewed the number of marbles lost by @Brian Hamilton
I'm what's called a 'Mental Health First Aider' in my workplace, don't you knowI think the term you are looking for is resistant, not rock solid. As for golf, it is a good walk spoiled
During lockdown I have
You on the other hand seem to have developed a glib manner of dismissal of other people's mental health. Well done you.
- completed my QTS
- achieved a solid pass in my PGCE (64%)
- taught vulnerable and key worker children
- continued my CPD across the summer
- taught every day in HT1 and HT2
- been paid to do the best job in the world (yes even better than refereeing, tutoring or observing)
What other sports allows you to beat your anger out with a club on your own.....I think the term you are looking for is resistant, not rock solid. As for golf, it is a good walk spoiled
I'm not sure I agree. Having played for two decades, we knew who could and couldn't referee. I think referees overstate the LOTG. They're hardly rocket science. Most players/coaches have a fair idea of a foul/caution/dismissal when they see one, they just don't know the correct terminology.Club marks have got to be the stupidest thing I've ever come across. If we're being honest, players don't know the first thing about the Laws, so how on earth are they supposed to appropriately grade a referee's performance?