I was a level 3 / 4, I just couldn't be *rsed to get assessed or any of the training, so I pretended to be a Level 7... I'd of got away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids!!!
Had my first step 6 middle today and for me I felt it went well despite calls from players saying I've missed this and that.
I had an experienced league officer who is also an observer on one line and another experienced guy on the other, both higher levels than me, and their feedback was great. The observer ref said only thing he might have done was caution the keeper for time wasting. I had a highly visible word with him about this and he sped up a bit after but I could have probably dealt with it quicker.
I cautioned a player for dissent.
This is something that is bugging me.
I'm wondering whether I should have just ignored it and had a quiet word when next out of play. But what I did do was stop play, called him over and told him he was very close to seeing red.
After turning down a penalty appeal he said to me "did you not see that?" I replied with a no.. He then said "your a ****ing..." and paused before not completing his sentence.
I commended him for it and said that if he finished what I thought he was going to say he was off but I said also that I will caution him and he best be on his best behaviour from now on.
Should I have done it differently?
Would you have sent him off or waited until its out of play next and had a word?
I've ran the line for a few demoted L5s recently who couldn't run 1K in 12 minutes, yet those refs get the choice appointments (below the pyramid that is)2000m in 12 mins?
If anybody at any level is not capable of that then (imo) they are not suitable to take to a pitch wearing a badge.
All very well saying serving the game and all that but if your taking a pay, then in return, there should be some very minimum standards set in return.
I've ran the line for a few demoted L5s recently who couldn't run 1K in 12 minutes, yet those refs get the choice appointments (below the pyramid that is)
Yeh, i mean don't get me wrong. There's still a lot to learn from these fellas, but their ability to officiate is clearly compromised by age & fitnessIts understandable, safe pair of hands and all that, the flip side being its still sport,your getting a payment for your duties, one of which includes being fit enough for the task in hand
Its confusing, as, if ones admin was constantly messed up, the league would act, yet if ones fitness is not, acceptable, the league still appoint
Its only fair to the teams that whoever is appointed is classed as suitable, one of the measures being, fitness.
Yeh, i mean don't get me wrong. There's still a lot to learn from these fellas, but their ability to officiate is clearly compromised by age & fitness
Can be frustrating when those same names block younger refs from getting decent games each week
Agree with fitness but disagree with age. If anything age brings about experience which is a good thing.their ability to officiate is clearly compromised by age & fitness
Agreed with regard to fitness standards.
Let's not forget however, @Ciley Myrus that at the lowest levels of grass roots, there are a good percentage of players who couldn't do 2k in 12 mins either ...
Stamina (and to a lesser extent, speed) tapers off quite slowly with age, so there'll be lots of referees out there who can still cover the ground at a ripe old age. The fellas I'm referring to were just out of shape. Age does equate with experience, but might also translate to an absence of observations, lack of motivation and dated AOL & methodologyAgree with fitness but disagree with age. If anything age brings about experience which is a good thing.
Stamina,, speed, agility and some other physical abilities all fall under fitness. There will be some 50+ referees out there who are much fitter the some 30- referees (faster, more stamina, more agile).Stamina (and to a lesser extent, speed) tapers off quite slowly with age, so there'll be lots of referees out there who can still cover the ground at a ripe old age. The fellas I'm referring to were just out of shape. Age does equate with experience, but might also translate to an absence of observations, lack of motivation and dated AOL & methodology
Yes, my initial age related comment was ageist and lazyish, but then went on to clarify the problems I've seen with a some colleagues who happen to be getting on a bitFor me looking at age as a criteria is just a lazy and unfair way of measuring the qualities you are looking for
Agree with fitness but disagree with age. If anything age brings about experience which is a good thing.
Thats a fair and valid point, but there are not expected to be up with play for 90mins and some touch the ball less than a dozen times in the entire game,
Not sure what sort of matches you're doing up there mate but down here, certainly in the matches I do, most players will touch the ball more than a dozen times during the 90.
As for the notion that they're not expected to be "up with play" for 90 mins - that's just your own opinion. I doubt you'll find any coach that'll agree with it.
Just saying like ....
Indeed must be a different sport altogether.
That is not what I said though .I don't think you can equate age with refereeing experience at our level
Already considered @Ben448844lack of motivation