Final Observation
- Thread starter zarathustra
- Start date
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Sure, that's absolutely a debate worth having. Although I'd still argue that a good observer would phrase it as "why didn't you feel that tackle was reckless and therefore worth a caution?", rather than using the meaningless expression "mandatory caution" and offer no further explanation or avenue for discussion.
But @zarathustra has already suggested in this thread that the reason it was considered a "mandatory caution" by the observer is because the observer considered it a "cynical challenge". In my mind, that usually translates to a "tactical foul" (AKA DOGSO but without the O). And although some of that type of challenge are obvious cautions, it's not uncommon for different people to have different opinions about just how cynical that foul is.
I can't say for sure without seeing it, but the posts on this thread so far suggest our OP saw the foul and deemed it not to be a tactical foul worthy of a caution. Unless the observer can quote a law suggesting otherwise, it sounds more like a matter of opinion rather than fact, and should be treated as such. And that's what makes it poor feedback.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
I manage players and the game in accordance with the LOTG........if a player commits a reckless challenge, they get a caution as per the LOTG. The LOTG do not allow for a referee judge a challenge reckless and not caution for it................
If a player commits a challenge which falls into this mythical "borderline" category (mythical because a challenge is either careless, reckless or dangerous, and it is only us referees that invent grey areas to appease our need to not apply the LOTG in certain situations), I would have to decide which side of the border it actually is before I consider my next steps.
I would never ask such a leading question in a debrief......I much prefer to simply ask the referee to "talk me through the challenge in the xxth minute..." and then see what their thought process was before digging deeper if i need to.
I don't believe any observer is going to refer to an incident with the words "mandatory caution" and nothing else. It might be a phrase which occurs at the end of a discussion, but would never the only comment made.
Bottom line is really that when you are being observed, ultimately it is the observers opinion that counts......as they are the one writing the report. For me, I will have an opinion on what I have seen, and when I conduct the debrief I am looking for the referee to make a reasoned explanation of why their opinion differed (if indeed it did)....then its up to me to make a judgment on whether the explanation is reasonable given the positioning etc etc.
It's all about trying to use constructive criticism to make referees think about what they need to improve on, as well as praise for the things they already do well. Like all human beings, some referees take the feedback better than others.
A good observer at that level shouldn't be focusing on one tackle. Angles are important, and it may be that it looked like a reckless foul from the observer's view whereas from the referee's view it just looked careless or not even a foul. It's only when you get to conference and above where a DVD can be reviewed that observers should be judging on individual decisions.
There are exceptions, for example where it is totally obvious that the referee has made a massive mistake, but observers generally have to accept that they are potentially susceptible to the same eyesight failures that referees are. We've all seen incidents on the TV and immediately shouted penalty, only to then see the incident from a different angle and say it was not a foul.
There are exceptions, for example where it is totally obvious that the referee has made a massive mistake, but observers generally have to accept that they are potentially susceptible to the same eyesight failures that referees are. We've all seen incidents on the TV and immediately shouted penalty, only to then see the incident from a different angle and say it was not a foul.
I may be giving our OP's observer less credit than he deserves, but from what we've been told it seems like he's only described a challenge as cynical and therefore a mandatory caution - which I'm sure you'd agree is arguably incorrect and definitely a poor quality of observing? If the OP was given the opportunity to describe the incident in the same way he has on here, I don't see how the observer could have reached the "mandatory caution" conclusion than he did.
So either the referee has expressed himself poorly at the time, or the observer has chosen to lecture rather than discuss. And I've definitely seen lecturing happen, if only (fortunately) as a by-standing AR rather than the subject of the observation.
I think you're skirting the point slightly though. If the observer thinks the referee has made a wrong decision because his positioning is poor, then the feedback should focus on the positioning. The way the OP has phrased the observers comments makes it very clear that the observer has given feedback that suggests the referee is wrong in law - which based on what we've been told, is absolutely incorrect. The referee has made a decision that he stands by, and than no one on this thread has suggested is wrong in law.
If we accept the fact that there are poor players and poor referees in football, it's logical to accept that there are poor observers too. And It sounds to me like this observer is either wrong in terms of his understanding of law, or is giving poor critique because he's not considered the referee's movement and what he has likely seen as a result of that movement. Either way, criticism of the observer seems justified.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
The observer definitely didn't lecture me, and the feedback was constructive. He didn't labour the point about the missed caution and it certainly didn't take up even a quarter of the debrief.
I'll wait to see what the written report says when I get it, the observer did explain why he thought it was cynical, he said the player was yanked back.
And while it didn't look that way to me, it's more than possible that I missed something due to my positioning etc. I was close to play, but perhaps my angle wasn't great. Getting a wider view is something I know I need to work on, although it wasn't mentioned after today's match.
Leaving this particular incident aside, over all I think this observeration was much more beneficial than my other two in terms of helping my development. The debrief alone lasted a good 20 minutes, and was more of a discussion about the way I did something, and how I could make changes to improve on certain areas of my performance.
The fact he moved around the pitch meant he could give advice on things like where I was at set pieces better etc. My first observer spent the match sat on a bench near the halfway line, and my second was stood in line with one of the penalty areas but about 20 yards or so from the touch line. And while I don't doubt they are good observers, staying in a static position isn't going to give the ideal view for a lot of incidents.
Also my two previous debriefs probably lasted no longer than 5 minutes or so each.
I'll wait to see what the written report says when I get it, the observer did explain why he thought it was cynical, he said the player was yanked back.
And while it didn't look that way to me, it's more than possible that I missed something due to my positioning etc. I was close to play, but perhaps my angle wasn't great. Getting a wider view is something I know I need to work on, although it wasn't mentioned after today's match.
Leaving this particular incident aside, over all I think this observeration was much more beneficial than my other two in terms of helping my development. The debrief alone lasted a good 20 minutes, and was more of a discussion about the way I did something, and how I could make changes to improve on certain areas of my performance.
The fact he moved around the pitch meant he could give advice on things like where I was at set pieces better etc. My first observer spent the match sat on a bench near the halfway line, and my second was stood in line with one of the penalty areas but about 20 yards or so from the touch line. And while I don't doubt they are good observers, staying in a static position isn't going to give the ideal view for a lot of incidents.
Also my two previous debriefs probably lasted no longer than 5 minutes or so each.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
If you give an incorrect decision because of poor positioning then you may also be incorrect in law because of that poor position.
One doesn't exclude the other.
If your position is poor so that it adversely affects your application of law, which in turn adversely affects your match control......it may affect your marks across all 3 areas.
Even if we accept your premise, that's kind of irrelevant to this discussion really. Again, the problem isn't knowledge and/or application of law, it's poor positioning that "may" leads to other difficulties. I still think that even if that was the case (and the observer in this case certainly doesn't seem to have tried to make that point), the feedback should address the positioning issues first, which even with @zarathustra 's clarifications above, doesn't seem to have been the approach taken. He's been left to come to that conclusion himself!
And once again, as a referee that's being observed, there's a big difference in severity between essentially stating "you don't know the law" and "you may not have been able to make the right call because your positioning was poor". The former is a big criticism that may damage confidence next time you referee, while the latter is simply a development point backed up with an example. If an observer has any interest in the welfare and development of referees he is sent to observe, that's a vital distinction to make.
At 7-6 and 6-5, observers should be moving around the FOP. This gives them angles and views on your positioning and how it adjusts to play. If the observer is static, then he only see one position.
It is in the opinion of the referee, whether a challenge is reckless - not in the opinion of the observer!. Only clearly reckless challenges not dealt with by a caution result in the marking down. However, the important thing is "what did the referee see?". Once he explains his position, then the observer an explain what he saw and decide whether the referee missed a "clearly reckless challenge". As the observer has a different angle, he will have seen a different challenge - this year I saw a sending off (from the edge of the FOP) but the referee's view was blocked so could not see anything - who is right?
Sorry, we are only allowed to adjust one performance criteria for a development area. The same issue cannot result in three adjustments!
Last edited:
Paul March
Well-Known Member
The most important part of any assessment is how you use it going forward. If you take the development points, recognise them as such and look to work out ways to improve your game you will get better and better.
Take the positives as well and interrogate yourself as to why they were seen in that way, when you work out the why"s you can look to replicate them across all aspects of refereeing.
I have worked out, for me, a very clear and concise pre match with the captains makes life easier, looking to step off the side of the pitch at least twice a half gets me wide enough, greater fitness levels keeps me up with play. These and others work for me- essentially it's about how to decide to react to criticism and praise- both can be damaging if you let it (sermon over )
Take the positives as well and interrogate yourself as to why they were seen in that way, when you work out the why"s you can look to replicate them across all aspects of refereeing.
I have worked out, for me, a very clear and concise pre match with the captains makes life easier, looking to step off the side of the pitch at least twice a half gets me wide enough, greater fitness levels keeps me up with play. These and others work for me- essentially it's about how to decide to react to criticism and praise- both can be damaging if you let it (sermon over )
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Well, I got the written report through a little while ago.
The observer said that the offence that I should have cautioned for was for a cynical foul that broke up a promising attack.
Summing up all of my assessments they go like this:
Assessment Number 1
Application of Law - Standard Expected
Match Control - Below Standard Expected (failure to deal with dissent)
Positioning and Movement - Above Standard Expected
Strengths
Assessment Number 2
Application of Law - Standard Expected
Match Control - Standard Expected
Positioning and Movement - Below Standard Expected
Strengths
Assessment 3
Application of Law - Standard Expected
Match Control - Above Standard
Positioning and Movement - Standard Expected
Strengths
In the main I've been happy with my performances across the 3 assessments/observations. A few silly little things that I have let myself down with, but nothing major.
I know positioning with regards to stuff in the penalty area was mentioned as a development point in 1 & 2 but it is something which has improved massively.
Still not sure how my positioning and movement went from Above Standard Expected in my first assessment to below standard expected in the second one, but different assessors/observers have different things that they expect so it's just one of those things.
The observer said that the offence that I should have cautioned for was for a cynical foul that broke up a promising attack.
Summing up all of my assessments they go like this:
Assessment Number 1
Application of Law - Standard Expected
Match Control - Below Standard Expected (failure to deal with dissent)
Positioning and Movement - Above Standard Expected
Strengths
- Your fitness was good for this level of the game
- Your hand and arm signals were clear and concise along with your whistle
- The advantages you gave during the game were good which was appreciated by both team
- You need to be stronger in your application of the Laws of The Game when dissent takes place
- Your fitness was good but you need to get closer to where the play takes place in the penalty areas
- Use your assistants more to help you in situations where long balls are kicked up field and incidents occur and you are a long way of the play
Assessment Number 2
Application of Law - Standard Expected
Match Control - Standard Expected
Positioning and Movement - Below Standard Expected
Strengths
- Good to see you taking time to instruct Club Assistant Referees
- Ensured players retreated required distance at free kicks, Arm/hand signals were good
- Quite correctly had good quiet words with offenders as opposed to showing cards
- Do not wait too long to call for a replacement ball after match ball is lost
- Do not allow substitutes to enter FOP before player being replaced has left
- Be closer for activity in penalty area for corners, free kicks and throw ins where applicable
Assessment 3
Application of Law - Standard Expected
Match Control - Above Standard
Positioning and Movement - Standard Expected
Strengths
- Good and accurate recognition of foul challenges
- Effective use of the stepped approach, using Blue captain to manage Blue 7
- Close to play to be able to make the correct judgements
- Caution the cynical offences, such as the blatant pull by Blue 3
- Familiarise yourself with Law 3 regarding changes to the team sheet before the match
- Don't stand and watch play, keep on the move
In the main I've been happy with my performances across the 3 assessments/observations. A few silly little things that I have let myself down with, but nothing major.
I know positioning with regards to stuff in the penalty area was mentioned as a development point in 1 & 2 but it is something which has improved massively.
Still not sure how my positioning and movement went from Above Standard Expected in my first assessment to below standard expected in the second one, but different assessors/observers have different things that they expect so it's just one of those things.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Following on from my previous message.
The description of the missed caution the observer gave in the written report makes me think that I didn't identify it as a cynical foul that broke up a promising attack because I was focused on the challenge, and that I didn't pay enough attention to the location of the other attacking players in the vicinity, so I didn't recognise there was a promising attack on the go.
Moving forward I will try not to get "tunnel vision" and perhaps increase my distance from the ball and angle to give me a better view of what else is going on.
Hopefully this will give me better situational awareness
The description of the missed caution the observer gave in the written report makes me think that I didn't identify it as a cynical foul that broke up a promising attack because I was focused on the challenge, and that I didn't pay enough attention to the location of the other attacking players in the vicinity, so I didn't recognise there was a promising attack on the go.
Moving forward I will try not to get "tunnel vision" and perhaps increase my distance from the ball and angle to give me a better view of what else is going on.
Hopefully this will give me better situational awareness
You're exactly right, it's about being able to both a) identify the nature of the challenge, and b) taking a view of the situation as a whole, and determining whether the tackle has stopped a promising attack.
By the looks of it, your three assessments should be good enough to get you level 6, depending on your club marks, and your county's attitude towards them.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Well I thought this was my final assessment, but apparently it isn't.
Got notified earlier today that I will be getting a fourth assessment next weekend.
Now, this isn't a problem for me, I like getting assessed and impartial feedback, whether good or bad, is the best way to improve. How can I know if I'm doing something wrong unless someone tells me?
However, it was a surprise as the criteria for promotion are 3 assessments, which I've had, a minimum of 20 matches, I'm a bit behind on this due to injury but I'm catching up nicely and will have hit this by the end of Jan (weather permitting), and an average of 70% for my club marks.
I was also under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that observers were at a premium.
I've asked my observer coordinator if there is a specific reason for the extra assessment, as I'm a naturally curious person.
Has anyone else ever had a surprise additional assessment?
Got notified earlier today that I will be getting a fourth assessment next weekend.
Now, this isn't a problem for me, I like getting assessed and impartial feedback, whether good or bad, is the best way to improve. How can I know if I'm doing something wrong unless someone tells me?
However, it was a surprise as the criteria for promotion are 3 assessments, which I've had, a minimum of 20 matches, I'm a bit behind on this due to injury but I'm catching up nicely and will have hit this by the end of Jan (weather permitting), and an average of 70% for my club marks.
I was also under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that observers were at a premium.
I've asked my observer coordinator if there is a specific reason for the extra assessment, as I'm a naturally curious person.
Has anyone else ever had a surprise additional assessment?
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
So apparently they had an observer spare so I get an extra one in, and may or may not get a fifth.
I'm happy with that, so for my next I will give it 100% like every match, but want to turn my one above standard into two above standards.
Interestingly the home team next weekend was the home team I had on my first assessment, and the reason I got a below standard on match control.
Of course their behaviour then will not affect how I referee this match, nor will it affect my interactions with this team.
I'm happy with that, so for my next I will give it 100% like every match, but want to turn my one above standard into two above standards.
Interestingly the home team next weekend was the home team I had on my first assessment, and the reason I got a below standard on match control.
Of course their behaviour then will not affect how I referee this match, nor will it affect my interactions with this team.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
The team was not the reason you got a below standard......and if their behaviour doesn't affect how you referee the match, or interact with them, then maybe prepare yourself for another disappointment!
Just like teams shouldn't blame a referee for losing, we shouldn't blame teams for our own poor performances. And of course a teams behaviour affects how we referee a match and interact with them........
Just like teams shouldn't blame a referee for losing, we shouldn't blame teams for our own poor performances. And of course a teams behaviour affects how we referee a match and interact with them........
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
Of course you are right, I got below standard because I failed to deal with their dissent properly, not because of their dissent.
And want I meant by their behaviour not affecting how I referee the match is that I won't consciously let my past experience with the team in March affect how I referee the match in December. I.E. It's a clean slate.
My refereeing ability has increased since the start of the promotion season, even with my extended break due to injury, and my confidence in my ability has also increased.
Well that's what I always say in a pre-match, but the assistants come straight back with "clean slate, no prejudging, etc" but if you know that a team are big dissenters, why wouldn't you get a grip on it early?
Managers who send people to do scouting reports on other teams don't get the report, and then bin it and say "we don't prejudge, everyone has a clean slate", do they?