The Ref Stop

Level 4 Observer Reports

es1 said:
how can you give someone a mark that you believe to be average if you don't actually know what the average mark across all refs / observers is? if i'd received an average mark i wouldnt have had an issue
Click to expand...
You get a base point for each section of 7 and work from there. Game impacting errors see a deduction, game enhancing actions/several correct actions may see an uplift. The reporting system provides the mark.

I think you missed my point. There shouldn't be a sharing of the mean mark, but the provision of a base mark is fine.
 
The Ref Stop
Brian Hamilton said:
You get a base point for each section of 7 and work from there. Game impacting errors see a deduction, game enhancing actions/several correct actions may see an uplift. The reporting system provides the mark.

I think you missed my point. There shouldn't be a sharing of the mean mark, but the provision of a base mark is fine.
Click to expand...
MOAS tells us the Pool average score is as well as our position in our Pool Merit Table
 
Brian Hamilton said:
You get a base point for each section of 7 and work from there. Game impacting errors see a deduction, game enhancing actions/several correct actions may see an uplift. The reporting system provides the mark.

I think you missed my point. There shouldn't be a sharing of the mean mark, but the provision of a base mark is fine.
Click to expand...

why not? clearly observers are inconsistent with how they mark. surely the aim would be to make them as consistent as possible? i think observers should either be aware of the current average in the pool they're observing on or given ranges that correspond to well below, below, average, above average and well above average marks.

i know observers are different in how they view a referees performance and apply the criteria, much like two referees will be different in how they apply LOTG, and as such 'consistency' is not possible. however shouldn't we still want to make it as consistent as we can?

there's 2 examples on this thread of well below average marks being awarded on games that appear challenging and where the observer had minor development at worst, that doesn't seem right to me
 
MattTheRef said:
Disappointed in my first report... .4 below league average in what my only point of note was not being 15-20 yards from the ball... The game was end to end with long balls over the top and I ran over 6.2 miles, I'm bound to not be within 15-20 yards when they are going from the middle of defence over the top wide?!

Local derby - 8 yellows, 1 red and no decisions wrong in the entire game. Match control never in doubt, 22 handshakes and an email from one of the clubs saying how well I did. Even the observer described it in the debrief as a good game.

Already feeling disillusioned.
Click to expand...
I know of referees who have run further and positioning is still a development area. Too much running can be as a sign of bad anticipation and understanding of the game, so you are always running to get into position.

What you should be identifying from your performance - was the workrate and movement suitable for the next level? Ask L3 how far they run during a match, and how do would they deal with such a comment on their observation. They will have had poor observer comments and acted accordingly.
 
lincs22 said:
Ask L3 how far they run during a match, and how do would they deal with such a comment on their observation. They will have had poor observer comments and acted accordingly.
Click to expand...
25 games las season my average distance was 8.03.
I always received favourable comments and uplifts in fitness and positioning. 10km seems excessive.
BUT we know there are accuracy issues with the type of running we do, so can't say for sure unless we had same model of watch.
I've already said previously about the 2 observations I had.
Don't worry after one game, need more Res to have more.observations to even get any remote idea of where you are sitting
This time last season I was down in low 40s. Out of 80 or so... At the end of the season I was in a promotion position.
 
Far too much is made of Positioning & Movement IMHO
Too many bright ideas and personal preferences banded about like fashion
Must say 6.2 miles is going some, unless we're Refereeing in a Stadium with a thousand balls and ball boys
 
Last edited:
es1 said:
why not? clearly observers are inconsistent with how they mark. surely the aim would be to make them as consistent as possible? i think observers should either be aware of the current average in the pool they're observing on or given ranges that correspond to well below, below, average, above average and well above average marks.

i know observers are different in how they view a referees performance and apply the criteria, much like two referees will be different in how they apply LOTG, and as such 'consistency' is not possible. however shouldn't we still want to make it as consistent as we can?

there's 2 examples on this thread of well below average marks being awarded on games that appear challenging and where the observer had minor development at worst, that doesn't seem right to me
Click to expand...
Because that isn't how the new form is supposed to work. Observers are supposed to just fill in each section of the form and an overall mark is automatically derived. If they try to conform to a league average they'd have to go back in and start tweaking section marks, which means the marks wouldn't necessarily match the written text, at least not unless they adjust the text and that starts to fall into the realm of making it up to support a mark.

Also, don't assume that you are going to get extra marks for running further. I've seen loads of referees that are running unnecessarily because they aren't reading play, as a result they are then having to sprint to get back into position, and that is likely to be a negative rather than positive. More distance doesn't equal higher marks and it can be the opposite.

Likewise more cards doesn't necessarily mean a better mark than a game with no cards. If they were standard cautions that would / should be impossible to miss then you aren't going to be getting an 8, whereas if they took skill to spot you might do. Also, and we haven't seen the report so don't know, I've seen referees issue lots of cards that potentially was a consequence of either going with cautions too early or letting it go too much early on and then having to resort to cards to try and wrestle control back. Neither of those situations are going to be rewarded by a good observer.
 
Happy to PM the report if needed.

The pitch is one of the biggest in our league, and biggest I’ve ever reffed on, a lot of play was centre backs playing over the top down the wing hence the distance.

I’ve spoken to a few guys local and it appears I got the toughest marker in our pool. 71.7 isn’t the worst mark and I’m happy with my performance. It’s annoying to be lower than average but perhaps my next observer il get the generous one and make up for it.

We move on and come back stronger.
 
RustyRef said:
Because that isn't how the new form is supposed to work. Observers are supposed to just fill in each section of the form and an overall mark is automatically derived. If they try to conform to a league average they'd have to go back in and start tweaking section marks, which means the marks wouldn't necessarily match the written text, at least not unless they adjust the text and that starts to fall into the realm of making it up to support a mark.

Also, don't assume that you are going to get extra marks for running further. I've seen loads of referees that are running unnecessarily because they aren't reading play, as a result they are then having to sprint to get back into position, and that is likely to be a negative rather than positive. More distance doesn't equal higher marks and it can be the opposite.

Likewise more cards doesn't necessarily mean a better mark than a game with no cards. If they were standard cautions that would / should be impossible to miss then you aren't going to be getting an 8, whereas if they took skill to spot you might do. Also, and we haven't seen the report so don't know, I've seen referees issue lots of cards that potentially was a consequence of either going with cautions too early or letting it go too much early on and then having to resort to cards to try and wrestle control back. Neither of those situations are going to be rewarded by a good observer.
Click to expand...
Fair post but much of it not really relevant to my situation
 
MattTheRef said:
Happy to PM the report if needed.

The pitch is one of the biggest in our league, and biggest I’ve ever reffed on, a lot of play was centre backs playing over the top down the wing hence the distance.

I’ve spoken to a few guys local and it appears I got the toughest marker in our pool. 71.7 isn’t the worst mark and I’m happy with my performance. It’s annoying to be lower than average but perhaps my next observer il get the generous one and make up for it.

We move on and come back stronger.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Keep going. Never give up.
 
My second observation (I've only done two games so far!), I cautioned for RP after 3 mins
By chance, the observer thought it was a very good decision to do so
Win some you lose some
 
Last edited:
RustyRef said:
Because that isn't how the new form is supposed to work. Observers are supposed to just fill in each section of the form and an overall mark is automatically derived. If they try to conform to a league average they'd have to go back in and start tweaking section marks, which means the marks wouldn't necessarily match the written text, at least not unless they adjust the text and that starts to fall into the realm of making it up to support a mark.

Also, don't assume that you are going to get extra marks for running further. I've seen loads of referees that are running unnecessarily because they aren't reading play, as a result they are then having to sprint to get back into position, and that is likely to be a negative rather than positive. More distance doesn't equal higher marks and it can be the opposite.

Likewise more cards doesn't necessarily mean a better mark than a game with no cards. If they were standard cautions that would / should be impossible to miss then you aren't going to be getting an 8, whereas if they took skill to spot you might do. Also, and we haven't seen the report so don't know, I've seen referees issue lots of cards that potentially was a consequence of either going with cautions too early or letting it go too much early on and then having to resort to cards to try and wrestle control back. Neither of those situations are going to be rewarded by a good observer.
Click to expand...
Longer version of what I posted. All valid points. Observers shouldn't write reports, then re-write them because they don't like the mark.
 
es1 said:
just write it with knowledge of what a poor/average/good mark is? i cannot see how having that knowledge can be an issue
Click to expand...
I think the over riding point is that the observer is not in control of the mark, the system calculates the mark based on the tick boxes of standard expected etc.
What is one observers outstanding is anothers above expected etc so the variation will still exist. Knowing what the average mark does not change this.
At 2b now the observer doesn't even see the mark at any point, and I expect that will filter down to L3 and 4 as the new reporting system did. So knowing the average is neither here nor there.
It can be worked out of course if you know the maths behind the weightings but that's a lot of effort to work out the moving parts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
I think the other issue is not that the observer’s goal is to decide whether this game was better reffed than games he hasn’t seen. If looks of refs are excelling, the average mark goes up. For example, if there are 10 observed games, and in 7 the ref does an excellent job, and in the other 3 the ref does a very good job, then the 3 refs who did a very good job are going to have very good marks—but still be below the average mark.

(edited to add the missing not)
 
Last edited:
es1 said:
just write it with knowledge of what a poor/average/good mark is? i cannot see how having that knowledge can be an issue
Click to expand...
How? If I don't have a timed example of something that you did well in a competency I can't give you an above standard mark, if I did have a timed example it would already have been included. If I get to the end and the mark doesn't look right all I can do is go back and make sure I haven't missed anything from my notes, or have selected the wrong mark in one of more of the competencies.

The system is designed to not let the observer choose a mark, MOAS does that automatically. The only way an observer can choose a mark is to start tweaking things, and that is exactly what the FA don't want.
 
socal lurker said:
I think the other issue is that the observer’s goal is to decide whether this game was better reffed than games he hasn’t seen. If looks of refs are excelling, the average mark goes up. For example, if there are 10 observed games, and in 7 the ref does an excellent job, and in the other 3 the ref does a very good job, then the 3 refs who did a very good job are going to have very good marks—but still be below the average mark.
Click to expand...
Not in England at L4 and above. The observer just selects a mark for each competency, and if they go for anything other than standard expected they have to provide timed evidence. As @JamesL has said, at 2B the observer doesn't even see the mark after it has been auto-generated, and it won't be long before that is cascaded down to lower levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top