A&H

Disappointing marks 5-4

Q

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
Level 4 Referee
Evening all,

Just a vent really, had my second 5-4 observation a few weeks back, ended in 8 yellows, 2 sin bins, 2 penalties and sending off a manager. After the game, had the debrief and he said that he was impressed with how I managed the game, fitness etc and had no real development points so I was feeling good!

Report has come through, first box ticked, ‘very challenging’ so that gives you an idea on the game. Despite his feedback, I’ve ended up with a 71.50, with no scoring below a 7. Got to say I disappointed with this. Especially on specific scoring about handling of sin bins (7 given), consistent disciplinary (7) and KMI’s (7 again) I did expect higher when it wasn’t lacking incidents in all these categories and he had no negatives/advisory points to give me, and stated in the debrief that he believed all my decisions were correct from his view and were managed correctly. Im honestly not sure what I could have done differently

First mark was 72.45 which I was satisfied with but had very little incident in that game and this has knocked my average down lower than I really could with it being, so who knows how this all really works haha!
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
QuaverRef said:
Evening all,

Just a vent really, had my second 5-4 observation a few weeks back, ended in 8 yellows, 2 sin bins, 2 penalties and sending off a manager. After the game, had the debrief and he said that he was impressed with how I managed the game, fitness etc and had no real development points so I was feeling good!

Report has come through, first box ticked, ‘very challenging’ so that gives you an idea on the game. Despite his feedback, I’ve ended up with a 71.50, with no scoring below a 7. Got to say I disappointed with this. Especially on specific scoring about handling of sin bins (7 given), consistent disciplinary (7) and KMI’s (7 again) I did expect higher when it wasn’t lacking incidents in all these categories and he had no negatives/advisory points to give me, and stated in the debrief that he believed all my decisions were correct from his view and were managed correctly. Im honestly not sure what I could have done differently

First mark was 72.45 which I was satisfied with but had very little incident in that game and this has knocked my average down lower than I really could with it being, so who knows how this all really works haha!
Click to expand...
Luck of the draw unfortunately. If there are competencies where he has clearly demonstrated that you are above standard but only given a 7.0 then you could appeal. With that amount of discipline I would expect discipline to not be 7, either it should be higher if you got them right or lower if he felt they were wrong. Same for sin bins, either they were right so reward or wrong so deduct.

PM it to me if you want me to have a look and advise.
 
QuaverRef said:
Evening all,

Just a vent really, had my second 5-4 observation a few weeks back, ended in 8 yellows, 2 sin bins, 2 penalties and sending off a manager. After the game, had the debrief and he said that he was impressed with how I managed the game, fitness etc and had no real development points so I was feeling good!

Report has come through, first box ticked, ‘very challenging’ so that gives you an idea on the game. Despite his feedback, I’ve ended up with a 71.50, with no scoring below a 7. Got to say I disappointed with this. Especially on specific scoring about handling of sin bins (7 given), consistent disciplinary (7) and KMI’s (7 again) I did expect higher when it wasn’t lacking incidents in all these categories and he had no negatives/advisory points to give me, and stated in the debrief that he believed all my decisions were correct from his view and were managed correctly. Im honestly not sure what I could have done differently

First mark was 72.45 which I was satisfied with but had very little incident in that game and this has knocked my average down lower than I really could with it being, so who knows how this all really works haha!
Click to expand...
Usually takes me a few days to think about my own performance in observed games. Usually also takes me a day or two to digest the debrief and assessment report. Ultimately, an average of 72 after two games is OK and nothing to worry about. It was apparent to me last year that scores vary geographically quite a lot. I didn't shoot the lights out on 5-to-4 assessments because I kept some focus on Club Marks as they're important to me. That said, I've very successfully refereed for the observers this season (yes I have changed my game for the observer), but that's killed my Club Marks. On reflection, I tend to agree with my somewhat crappy Club Marks at least as much as my assessment scores (which are top 10%)

In a nutshell, 72 average is OK and just move on. The assessment scores are only one aspect of your performance and it you should just take a few nuggets from it into your next game (or ignore the assessment if you don't agree with it). Most important in my opinion, is how you feel you performed yourself. If you get in the car afterwards and think to yourself, 'that was tough, but I did well there', then take everything else with a pinch of salt
 
If you ended up with 71.50 with no DPs (ie 6.5 or below) then he must have scored you 7.5 (or higher) in at least 2 of the categories?

Having said that, 2 x penalties translates as 2 x KMIs which (unless he thinks you got them wrong) suggests at least a 7.5. The same with discipline/sanctions - that many cards and 2 sin bins would suggest 7.5 or higher.

It's not an exact science, but if he has used words like "good" or "very well" within the narrative but only given a 7, you should have cause for appeal/redress in my humble opinion. Just my opinion though of course.

Maybe do as @RustyRef has suggested and ping him a copy for a second opinion. I myself don't observe that many 5-4 candidates. .. :)
 
Kes said:
If you ended up with 71.50 with no DPs (ie 6.5 or below) then he must have scored you 7.5 (or higher) in at least 2 of the categories?

Having said that, 2 x penalties translates as 2 x KMIs which (unless he thinks you got them wrong) suggests at least a 7.5. The same with discipline/sanctions - that many cards and 2 sin bins would suggest 7.5 or higher.

It's not an exact science, but if he has used words like "good" or "very well" within the narrative but only given a 7, you should have cause for appeal/redress in my humble opinion. Just my opinion though of course.

Maybe do as @RustyRef has suggested and ping him a copy for a second opinion. I myself don't observe that many 5-4 candidates. .. :)
Click to expand...
Maybe Mr O thought the fist C1 came too early or Mr O thought some of the cautions could've been avoided pro-actively
Without being there, or without reading the Report, we have no idea

It gets my goat a bit that loadsa cautions and so on should automatically lead to a 7.5 or higher (assuming the sanctions could loosely be supported). Like I say, I've scored really well this year by showing 'no mercy' with anything. No empathy, no understanding, no management, no understanding of the game, just cautions (supportable) and no risk of upsetting Mr O with what he thinks is a missed caution.... and just racking up the points... but killing Club Marks and not refereeing the way I want to

Didn't think I'd ever go over to the dark side, but I'm no better than an EPL or FIFA Ref. Just doing what I'm told and turning into the 'accepted cardboard cutout Ref' and therefore complicit by contributing to what I think is 'poor refereeing' at times
 
Big Cat said:
Maybe Mr O thought the fist C1 came too early or Mr O thought some of the cautions could've been avoided pro-actively
Without being there, or without reading the Report, we have no idea

It gets my goat a bit that loadsa cautions and so on should automatically lead to a 7.5 or higher (assuming the sanctions could loosely be supported). Like I say, I've scored really well this year by showing 'no mercy' with anything. No empathy, no understanding, no management, no understanding of the game, just cautions (supportable) and no risk of upsetting Mr O with what he thinks is a missed caution.... and just racking up the points... but killing Club Marks and not refereeing the way I want to

Didn't think I'd ever go over to the dark side, but I'm no better than an EPL or FIFA Ref. Just doing what I'm told and turning into the 'accepted cardboard cutout Ref' and therefore complicit by contributing to what I think is 'poor refereeing' at times
Click to expand...

You little ray of sunshine you ... ;) :p:D
 
As far as 5-4 criteria goes, it’s simply not worth worrying about or arguing about if it’s above 70.
Next season at L4 it could have a much bigger impact but pick your battles. No need to kick up a fuss about it this season as you only need to average 70!
 
Will_A said:
As far as 5-4 criteria goes, it’s simply not worth worrying about or arguing about if it’s above 70.
Next season at L4 it could have a much bigger impact but pick your battles. No need to kick up a fuss about it this season as you only need to average 70!
Click to expand...
That isn't strictly true. Yes, you need to average above 70 to be nominated, but being nominated doesn't mean you will be promoted. So if you think the mark is too low and have evidence to back it up there is no harm in appealing. Will be completely different people reviewing it at 5 to 4 than at L4, so not as if you are going to make a name for yourself as a complainer.

CFAs have to rank their nominated candidates in order of preference, and that will usually be primarily based on observation marks, so those extra 0.5 or 0.25 marks can make a massive difference at the end of the season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
Big Cat said:
Maybe Mr O thought the fist C1 came too early or Mr O thought some of the cautions could've been avoided pro-actively
Without being there, or without reading the Report, we have no idea

It gets my goat a bit that loadsa cautions and so on should automatically lead to a 7.5 or higher (assuming the sanctions could loosely be supported). Like I say, I've scored really well this year by showing 'no mercy' with anything. No empathy, no understanding, no management, no understanding of the game, just cautions (supportable) and no risk of upsetting Mr O with what he thinks is a missed caution.... and just racking up the points... but killing Club Marks and not refereeing the way I want to

Didn't think I'd ever go over to the dark side, but I'm no better than an EPL or FIFA Ref. Just doing what I'm told and turning into the 'accepted cardboard cutout Ref' and therefore complicit by contributing to what I think is 'poor refereeing' at times
Click to expand...
Poacher turned gatekeeper! 🙂
 
RustyRef said:
That isn't strictly true. Yes, you need to average above 70 to be nominated, but being nominated doesn't mean you will be promoted. So if you think the mark is too low and have evidence to back it up there is no harm in appealing. Will be completely different people reviewing it at 5 to 4 than at L4, so not as if you are going to make a name for yourself as a complainer.

CFAs have to rank their nominated candidates in order of preference, and that will usually be primarily based on observation marks, so those extra 0.5 or 0.25 marks can make a massive difference at the end of the season.
Click to expand...
Unless everyone with an average of 70+ gets taken like recently. Not sure when the FA will be able to go back to the way things were
 
Big Cat said:
Maybe Mr O thought the fist C1 came too early or Mr O thought some of the cautions could've been avoided pro-actively
Without being there, or without reading the Report, we have no idea
Click to expand...
If that was the case, the report should mention it. A number of years ago, I did an observation report where there was 6-7 cautions, most I felt was caused by an early caution which was not necessary - but he had sent his level and had to be maintained. I marked him 6.5 in Match Control as I felt the early caution had weakened his overall control of the game and was having to caution to maintain control, but enhance his control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top