Kes
I'll Decide ...
It probably won't have escaped your notice that I tend to generally agree with most of what you post on here, but on this occasion, I think you're talking utter pants Sir.
Good day.
Heard a Rumour .......
- Thread starter Kes
- Start date
It probably won't have escaped your notice that I tend to generally agree with most of what you post on here, but on this occasion, I think you're talking utter pants Sir.
Good day.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I'll try to go vaguely back on topic but the chat between Kes and Padfoot is too much fun not to participate in . For what it's worth, I hope they don't radically change the current system. For those of us who have recently put in the effort to progress, it would be a bit frustrating. And overall, especially compared to other aspects of the game we love, it doesn't seem fundamentally broken so why bother?
My personal experience is that, on balance, there is a higher proportion of better referees at L5 than at L7. That said, I've been lucky enough to work with (and learn from) some cracking refs at both of these levels. And in contrast, I've certainly seen a fair few very experienced refs at both levels whose fitness isn't where it was and who have fallen into some bad habits! Overall, the officials I've especially benefitted from being in a team with, are those of all ages currently (or recently) involved in the promotion scheme. Probably because they tend to be highly committed to reffing and still eager to improve. Experience is indeed a highly useful tool in your armoury .. but so too is passion to improve and progress ....
. For what it's worth, I hope they don't radically change the current system. For those of us who have recently put in the effort to progress, it would be a bit frustrating. And overall, especially compared to other aspects of the game we love, it doesn't seem fundamentally broken so why bother?My personal experience is that, on balance, there is a higher proportion of better referees at L5 than at L7. That said, I've been lucky enough to work with (and learn from) some cracking refs at both of these levels. And in contrast, I've certainly seen a fair few very experienced refs at both levels whose fitness isn't where it was and who have fallen into some bad habits! Overall, the officials I've especially benefitted from being in a team with, are those of all ages currently (or recently) involved in the promotion scheme. Probably because they tend to be highly committed to reffing and still eager to improve. Experience is indeed a highly useful tool in your armoury .. but so too is passion to improve and progress ....
YorkshireReferee
Well-Known Member
My issue with experience being a deciding factor is that I imagine we all know a good few referees who are very experienced but have a 10 year old knowledge of the laws of the game. Also, I know a lot of experienced referees who have only assisted 2-3 times in their career. I wouldn't want those assisting higher than somebody that's been refereeing 2 years but has spent a season assisting on supply.
Basically, yes the rumour is true @Kes - from the 2017-18 season (IIRC) there will be no level 10, 9, 8, 7 or 6. There'll be separate classifications for trainees (T), youth referees (Y) (not sure if that will be U16s like the current L8, or just any referees only doing youth football), and coaches, mentors etc. (E). Once a new referee has passed the course and done X amount of games, they go straight to L5.
Definitely an advantage for any talented newbies coming through, particularly the ones without time on their side, as they'll be able to referee at a level more in-keeping with their ability, rather than being limited to doing a certain level because of the number next to their name. Scraps the need for people to double-jump, too.
Definitely an advantage for any talented newbies coming through, particularly the ones without time on their side, as they'll be able to referee at a level more in-keeping with their ability, rather than being limited to doing a certain level because of the number next to their name. Scraps the need for people to double-jump, too.
So just to clarify how this affects me and people in my position. I've just started 6-5, and all going well, would hope to be level 5 by March 2017. You're suggesting that if I just sat around and did the bare minimum amount of games to keep myself feeling involved, I'd be "promoted" to L5 approximately 6 months after I'm due to reach L5 anyway?
Given that under the current system there is a lot of paperwork involved in 6-5, plus the need to go to an IST session, an extra LOTG exam and the looming possibility that I'll either fail an assessment or be hit by an injury that stops me being able to do the required number of games (I already need to see a physio about my ankle!) - what's the incentive for me to put the work in now?
I want to progress up the pyramid as fast as possible, so at the end of the day, this probably won't put me off - but it still seems a real kick in the teeth for people who are in the process of putting the work in to go 7-6 or 6-5? And if this is true, I'm genuinely considering if it would be "safer" in terms of injuries and my long-term progression to just take it easy?
I'd suggest that it wouldn't reflect favourably upon you if you decided to sit back and do the bare minimum.
At the end of the day, although you'll be a L5 in name, it's not really going to be a promotion, as RDOs/appointment secretaries are still going to have to decide on a pecking order based on availability, reliability and ability. Who are they going to pick between someone who decided not to go 6-5, didn't go to any of the in-service training, didn't bother doing the LotG test... or someone who decided to go for it anyway so that they'd have the benefit of being assessed and learning from the feedback (even though they'd be a 5 the next season anyway), went to the training events, did the LotG exam, and generally put more effort in? I know which one I'd pick.
But they're not picking between those two options - if there's technically no difference between me and someone who passed 2 months ago and did their first 6 games, then by your argument, I'll still be better off than them.
And what's especially frustrating is that if this had been put in place 2 years ago, I could be working towards level 3 now. As it is, you're suggesting I've spent last year working on a soon to be meaningless 7-6 promotion, I'm now on a soon to be meaningless 6-5 promotion scheme, and in just over a year's time, I'll be technically the same level as someone who's still a year away from even deciding to become a referee? It makes zero sense to me to just smash levels 5-10 together like that.
Mr Pike.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Only thing I can add is I was told about this on Sunday by a level 5 I was AR to, he didn't have any further details.
Was just about to ask if anyone else had heard about it, when , lo & behold I saw this thread!
I'm guessing won't make a whole lot of difference and that preferences at registration for types of football will still be available to choose and will be taken into account by appointing officers?
Was just about to ask if anyone else had heard about it, when , lo & behold I saw this thread!
I'm guessing won't make a whole lot of difference and that preferences at registration for types of football will still be available to choose and will be taken into account by appointing officers?
Monotone Whistle
Well-Known Member
I think you are seeing this wrong. The numbering may change, but the required ability, experience, etc. will still be there. I highly doubt that a newly-qualified L5 (under the new system) would be allowed to apply for L4, or even if they were, would be successful against the more experienced (and most likely better) candidates. Of course, it is possible, but your journey from L7 to L5 is still going to be highly relevant.
I would expect that the criteria to apply for L4 will change to accommodate some form of experience commensurate with doing 2 years' worth of refereeing, at the appropriate level, and will probably become even more strict than it is now. So, in all likelihood, these new referees will find it harder to get beyond L5.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Who knows?
Anyway, none of it makes any real difference according to Padfoot. Levels 7 through to 5 is basically the same thing and so, using the same logic, any Level 5 is practically at Level 4/3 standard anyway bar the simple box-ticking assessments......
Exactly.Who knows?
Anyway, none of it makes any real difference according to Padfoot. Levels 7 through to 5 is basically the same thing and so, using the same logic, any Level 5 is practically at Level 4/3 standard anyway bar the simple box-ticking assessments......
Right now, there is a distinct difference between a L7 and an L5, along with an associated amount of time, work and commitment required to move from one to the other. And people who appoint referees have loads of names to track - if people are suggesting they'll continue to track who was an "old L7" vs who was an "old L5" and appoint accordingly, I think that's an unfair expectation. The distinction between L8, L7, L6 and L5 exists so referee appointment secretaries don't have to do that.
Ok I've had a few things confirmed today and I'm not sure about some of them
Season 2017-18 all referees below L4 will be classified as Level 5. Within Level 5 there will be different classifications such as Trainee (5T), Junior (5J), etc.
All tutors (and possibly assessors) will no longer be classified as Level 10 if they are no longer active but Level E (for educator).
All assessors will become observers. Observers will not be required to assess and report on Level 5s unless they are going for Level 4. As Observers will not be writing reports on 7-6 and 6-5, they will be asked to observe and comment on referees. As no reports are expected, they can observe multiple referees at the same venue and provide feedback as required.
Apologies for being a doubting Thomas. My County are already wondering how they are supposed to classify all 750 Level 5 referees in the West Riding...
Season 2017-18 all referees below L4 will be classified as Level 5. Within Level 5 there will be different classifications such as Trainee (5T), Junior (5J), etc.
All tutors (and possibly assessors) will no longer be classified as Level 10 if they are no longer active but Level E (for educator).
All assessors will become observers. Observers will not be required to assess and report on Level 5s unless they are going for Level 4. As Observers will not be writing reports on 7-6 and 6-5, they will be asked to observe and comment on referees. As no reports are expected, they can observe multiple referees at the same venue and provide feedback as required.
Apologies for being a doubting Thomas. My County are already wondering how they are supposed to classify all 750 Level 5 referees in the West Riding...
