Level 3/4 Pathway Choice

[Big Cat]

Fair enough. I can understand your rationale with specialist AR.

I think we'd have to discuss the overall topic in person to avoid misunderstanding. One problem with my posts, is it's not usually clear how serious I'm being with my opinions. Half the time, I'm just stirring up opinions without breaking the rules

Anyway, I'll probably just stick with dual as I do OK at both. My geography is not very stimulating at times. Zillions of clubs and very low attendances when compared to the national average. Some of the Step 4 assisting would be get repetatively dull
Actually, some of the Refereeing gets a bit stale, but to a lesser extent. Variation therefore remains the best tactic

 

[DavidObs]

I think we'd have to discuss the overall topic in person to avoid misunderstanding. One problem with my posts, is it's not usually clear how serious I'm being with my opinions. Half the time, I'm just stirring up opinions without breaking the rules

Anyway, I'll probably just stick with dual as I do OK at both. My geography is not very stimulating at times. Zillions of clubs and very low attendances when compared to the national average. Some of the Step 4 assisting would be get repetatively dull
Actually, some of the Refereeing gets a bit stale, but to a lesser extent. Variation therefore remains the best tactic

Absolutely & i do feel sorry for some ARs these days with sometimes the small amounts of advice they are expected to provide, though they always have to be in the right place throughout, which some do not do.

 

[Steve Fall]

From what I understood from the call today is that if you select to become a SAR at L4 then in the future you decide you want to referee again then you can, but it may be a step lower. The aim of it was that some people just want to run the line etc, so instead of having to wait you can select it straight away. But you do need to be promoted to L4 as a referee to make the choice. You can be a L5 and select that route up the ladder.

 

[one]

I can only speak from my experiences down under (or as I would like to call it up above).

IMO in order to be a good AR at any level, you'd have to be a good referee at one level below. Choosing specialised referee pathway works at any level but choosing specialised AR depends on your ambitions and how far up you want to go. Choosing it too early could mean you'd never hit your goal.

In terms of observations marking system, I feel that it needs an overhaul. The system is basically giving a marking for components and then using the overall marking which is based on the component marks for ranking. It sounds good in theory but not in practice. What I found is that most observers already know where the overall mark should be before they mark the components. They then give the component marks to and up with the desired overall mark. And if we don't end up there, we go back and adjust the component marks, and the comments to match it. This is not necessarily a bad thing all the time but the observation marking system was not designed to work this way.

It will be interesting if AI will find it's way into it over the next few years and helps with consistent marking across the board. Or it may have the opposite effect.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

I can only speak from my experiences down under (or as I would like to call it up above).

IMO in order to be a good AR at any level, you'd have to be a good referee at one level below. Choosing specialised referee pathway works at any level but choosing specialised AR depends on your ambitions and how far up you want to go. Choosing it too early could mean you'd never hit your goal.

In terms of observations marking system, I feel that it needs an overhaul. The system is basically giving a marking for components and then using the overall marking which is based on the component marks for ranking. It sounds good in theory but not in practice. What I found is that most observers already know where the overall mark should be before they mark the components. They then give the component marks to and up with the desired overall mark. And if we don't end up there, we go back and adjust the component marks, and the comments to match it. This is not necessarily a bad thing all the time but the observation marking system was not designed to work this way.

It will be interesting if AI will find it's way into it over the next few years and helps with consistent marking across the board. Or it may have the opposite effect.

In England, as from this season the Observer does not see the total mark they have awarded to the referee, which (IMHO) is a step in the right direction.
A radical change would be to not display the total mark to the referee, and even more radical would be to stop issuing "merit tables" at various stages throughout the season.

 

[JamesL]

In England, as from this season the Observer does not see the total mark they have awarded to the referee, which (IMHO) is a step in the right direction.
A radical change would be to not display the total mark to the referee, and even more radical would be to stop issuing "merit tables" at various stages throughout the season.

Can't say I disagree entirely with this... Would be interesting at least as a trial.

 

[Archer]

In England, as from this season the Observer does not see the total mark they have awarded to the referee, which (IMHO) is a step in the right direction.

74.88 and 73.15. Hope that helps. Thanks

 

[DavidObs]

In England, as from this season the Observer does not see the total mark they have awarded to the referee, which (IMHO) is a step in the right direction.
A radical change would be to not display the total mark to the referee, and even more radical would be to stop issuing "merit tables" at various stages throughout the season.

From a purely development point of view I can see where you are coming from, but from a Referee/AR point of view I think that now more than ever before, they need to know where they stand in making their way through the pathway (assuming that’s what they want to do). In my days as a Referee (& AR) I literally had no idea at any time during the season whether or not the observation marks were below or above average for the level of football I was at. In this day & age with the need of transparency/openeness (as much as possible), I think Referees & ARs need to know.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

From a purely development point of view I can see where you are coming from, but from a Referee/AR point of view I think that now more than ever before, they need to know where they stand in making their way through the pathway (assuming that’s what they want to do). In my days as a Referee (& AR) I literally had no idea at any time during the season whether or not the observation marks were below or above average for the level of football I was at. In this day & age with the need of transparency/openeness (as much as possible), I think Referees & ARs need to know.

Why do refererees need to know the pool average throughout the season? In deciding which pathway to follow, an individual mark for refereeing, and one for AR appointments, at the end of the season would inform the official sufficiently.
A pool average for the season could be released at the same time.
Every official is surely trying to perform to the best of their ability in every game, irrespective of whether they are 5th in their pool or 35th?

 

[Archer]

Hypothetically, if marks were hidden, could an official make an Access Request (or whatever it’s callled) to have their data / information revealed to them?

 

[DavidObs]

Why do refererees need to know the pool average throughout the season? In deciding which pathway to follow, an individual mark for refereeing, and one for AR appointments, at the end of the season would inform the official sufficiently.
A pool average for the season could be released at the same time.
Every official is surely trying to perform to the best of their ability in every game, irrespective of whether they are 5th in their pool or 35th?

Fair & reasonable comments though as to the last para, in an ideal world you would think so. However, because I wasn’t appointed to a game last Saturday, I went to a game purely as a spectator with officials I had observed during the season on a fixture that needed the Home team to win to have any chance of automatic promotion/win the league. All 3 knew they were not being observed and provided a performance to reflect that & not in a positive way - the Referee maintained control throughout & applied Law appropriately. However, his movement was lazy as too was his communication & the same can be said for his ARs. So I don’t think they did perform to the best of their ability. Whether they would perform more consistently if they didn’t know what their pool average was I don’t know, but I think if we asked 100 Referees/ARs do they want to know what their real time pool mark is, I suspect it will be into the 90’s saying yes. James may be right for a trail, whereby we would all want to know the best way to improve the development/quality/consistency of officials.

 

[DavidObs]

Hypothetically, if marks were hidden, could an official make an Access Request (or whatever it’s callled) to have their data / information revealed to them?

Good point & I suspect they could.

 

[Big Cat]

This whole idea of observers not seeing scores is curious. It's like an admission that they're bent
Observers not knowing if they're miles above or below the pool average... also curious. How else would they know if they're arbitrarily blowing smoke up ref's backsides or killing them with significant variation between observers with respect to what merits 'above expected'? All referees being miles 'above expected', even the worst performers in the pool, also complete nonsense. Those referees are clearly well 'below expected'. I'm at a total loss with regards to Mr Knight's mentality and anyone he's brainwashed.
As stated earlier, it's a process that's fundamentally flawed. At my age, I'm able to stop measuring my self-worth against a scheme I've lost belief in, but it's extinguished any interest I had in becoming an observer. I really do think the scheme is flawed sufficiently that I've nowt else to say about it. I just measure myself against my own high standards and give every game a good go. Beyond that, once I hang up my boots, I'm back on the golf course. No sour grapes. I've done well overall. But Mr Knight is clueless. Nothing against any observer (even the well known low scorers). They all put a lot of effort in and they're not the problem

 

[DavidObs]

This whole idea of observers not seeing scores is curious. It's like an admission that they're bent
Observers not knowing if they're miles above or below the pool average... also curious. How else would they know if they're arbitrarily blowing smoke up ref's backsides or killing them with significant variation between observers with respect to what merits 'above expected'? All referees being miles 'above expected', even the worst performers in the pool, also complete nonsense. Those referees are clearly well 'below expected'. I'm at a total loss with regards to Mr Knight's mentality and anyone he's brainwashed.
As stated earlier, it's a process that's fundamentally flawed. At my age, I'm able to stop measuring my self-worth against a scheme I've lost belief in, but it's extinguished any interest I had in becoming an observer. I really do think the scheme is flawed sufficiently that I've nowt else to say about it. I just measure myself against my own high standards and give every game a good go. Beyond that, once I hang up my boots, I'm back on the golf course. No sour grapes. I've done well overall. But Mr Knight is clueless. Nothing against any observer (even the well known low scorers). They all put a lot of effort in and they're not the problem

Mr Knight (as you refer to him) & I have had cross swords in the distant past, but not in recent years & overall, I think he is a good egg & certainly works hard (which includes him being a PGMOL Observer on Saturday’s & Sunday’s), though there are still things about the scheme I am not overly happy about - but I either have to accept or get on with it. I have chosen the latter. However, the main reason for this reply is that it may not be that MK (PK) is the main driver for Observers not to see their marks, but is something that first occurred a season or two ago for those Observing L2 Referees, but no longer in point with the introduction of scouts & which he (Mr Knight) would have had no input in. Of course this doesn’t mean to say he didn’t pick up on the idea & introduced it for Steps 3-6 or the powers that be up the food chain wanted to include it.

 

[one]

This whole idea of observers not seeing scores is curious. It's like an admission that they're bent
Observers not knowing if they're miles above or below the pool average... also curious. How else would they know if they're arbitrarily blowing smoke up ref's backsides or killing them with significant variation between observers with respect to what merits 'above expected'? All referees being miles 'above expected', even the worst performers in the pool, also complete nonsense. Those referees are clearly well 'below expected'. I'm at a total loss with regards to Mr Knight's mentality and anyone he's brainwashed.
As stated earlier, it's a process that's fundamentally flawed. At my age, I'm able to stop measuring my self-worth against a scheme I've lost belief in, but it's extinguished any interest I had in becoming an observer. I really do think the scheme is flawed sufficiently that I've nowt else to say about it. I just measure myself against my own high standards and give every game a good go. Beyond that, once I hang up my boots, I'm back on the golf course. No sour grapes. I've done well overall. But Mr Knight is clueless. Nothing against any observer (even the well known low scorers). They all put a lot of effort in and they're not the problem

Go on then. Tell us how it should be done

 

[Big Cat]

Go on then. Tell us how it should be done

Above Expected = Above Expected
Standard Expected = Standard Expected
Below Expected = Below Expected
(for any given level)

Complicated isn't it!?