I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm but I fail to see how the assessor cannot offer you more development points. Long term this offers you nothing except getting you through this promotion which is fine but I have recently assessed a 5/4 candidate who has had 2 promotions on assessments like this - he was shocked when he has been offered multiple development points and told he is wrong in some areas
(And marked accordingly - effectively his promotion chance is over after 1 assessment) and a lot of it is because for 2 years he hasn't been guided in the right direction
1) Its a 7-6 assessment, which is the first step for me on what will hopefully be a successful career
2) The guidance document on assessments has 7-6 assessment with 3 focus areas with 12 bullet points. 6-5 has 6 areas with 31 bullet points. I've not even looked at the 5-4 as that is miles off for me at the moment. I would fully expect as the bar gets raised as I progress that I will get more development points. Maybe its because I came to refereeing later than some people, but i'm not blasé or naive enough to think that because I got one 7-6 assessment that was good then I don't have any faults in my game that I need to correct. Personally even though i'm only doing 7-6 i'm actually using the 6-5 criteria as my benchmark as I want to ensure I'm embracing best practice. I hope that doing that, coupled with having taken a couple of seasons to "learn my craft" plus getting on a supply league AR panel this past season has helped me to build a solid foundation for my career.
3) The comments from you and
@Padfoot indicates one of my frustrations around the inconsistency with assessors. In the document we have been given the mark "above standard" as being "Demonstrates a level of performance that is above the standard at which they are currently refereeing." Therefore above standard = Level 6, not Level 5 as you said if the County FA document is applied correctly.
4) The assessor I had is only qualified to do 7-6 assessments, no higher. Whilst I would like to have development points relating to the competencies at higher levels, you could argue that having those incorporated in from someone who isn't qualified to do so could be counter productive to a referees development longer term. The other alternative is to only let people assess at one level below that which they are qualified (i.e. you have to have completed the 6-5 assessors course to be able to deliver 7-6 assessments) so you can give a "further out view"
5) There are not enough assessors to go round. The fact that this one doesn't use a computer and handwrites is for me neither here nor there. If there were a surplus of assessors then maybe the CFA could mandate it be done electronically, reality is if its a choice between having someone handwrite an assessment or candidates not getting assessed, which is the lesser of the 2 evils?