socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Oof. I lost the ”not” somehow, which entirely messed up the point I was making. Edited above.
Level 4 Observer Reports
- Thread starter Big Cat
- Start date
I'm not saying you must give the ref the average mark. But an 'average' mark must be close to the average. Whatever is happening now with training clearly isn't creating consistent results, so do something and make it better.
For what it's worth I think the averages are way higher than what it should be. When the new marking scheme was brought in it was expected that marks would be closer to 70 that 73, that doesn't really seem to be the case.
I don't think it should be hard or too much to expect that an observer thinking they're rewarding / giving an average mark actually gives a mark that is roughly average and not something significantly above or below. That simply is not the case at the moment (I'm not just going off my one example).
Fair enough, I've ranted enough about this over the last 2 weeks anyway...!
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
I suggest you read or re-read the last para of post #49 in this thread. We have had the equivalent of less than 2 seasons' use because of Covid, and a lot of work is going on at all levels in England to ensure continuing improvements.
As others have said, there will always be some anomalies (which can be appealed) and referees who think they deserve a better mark.
Those examples/excuses still don't help and still clearly aren't enough
How does that work? If you go up you will spend a lot more time away from home than you do now.
To talk through my match day process, during the game I note down everything that could contribute to an above standard or below standard mark. And I do mean everything, including every foul, who committed it and what the time was.
When I get home I assign every point in my notes to competencies, and sometimes they can be relevant to more than one. I then start writing the report, if I have no timed evidence for that competency then by definition it is standard expected and 7.0. If I have timed evidence I then have to decide for each competency whether that is a standard 0.5 increase / decrease or whether it merits more than that. That derives a mark at the end of it, and almost always it "feels" about right. When it hasn't felt right I've usually ticked the wrong box and can go back to correct it, or it has been a game where absolutely nothing has happened.
Is it fair? Not completely, as if you are on a game where there is no PI, no RP, no dissent, no SPA, etc, it can be very difficult to get noticed. But equally the old system wasn't fair, where some observers were giving 80s and other 70s for the same type of game and performance. I would argue the current system is much fairer, and I speak as someone who averaged 79 and didn't go up (and I can assure you my toys got chucked out of the box on that occasion so I know it is frustrating)
Nah its not that simple. I juggle quite a few things and it's got the point one has to go. Atm reffing at 4 is the one. If I got 3, something else would make way.
Luck is the biggest thing in play here...just got to get the right game, right observer etc and you're sorted...
Fair enough, personal circumstances should always come first.
Luck does play a big part, but nowhere near like it used to do. Luck 10 years ago was that you could get an observer that averages 81 or an observer that averages 71. Now you are looking at getting one that manages 72.9 versus one that averages 71.4, it is all a lot more bunched up. Not what you want to hear I know, but it is vastly better now that it has ever been before.
I'd disagree imo, you've got to be capable sure, but the luck to get the right observer, or no observer at all often makes the difference.
Could just be my natural cynical point of view, but that's my experience
Isn't that exactly the same as I said?
Using my own personal example, had I not had an observer on the hardest supply league I'd ever refereed, or if I had one that wasn't willing to go as high as 84 on the mark, I might not have been promoted. That was luck related to my own performance. These days the same performance would probably see me getting 73, 74 at the absolutely most, so as I said the numbers are a lot more bunched up.
i didnt really want to get back involved in this but hey ho...
that's not remotely close to what i'm getting at and in any case, i'm sure the system is open to that already...
what i'm suggesting is more like a check to make sure the mark reflects what the observer intends based on averages within the pool
That's what the appeal process is for. If the mark doesn't reflect the written text you can ask for it to be reviewed.
The observer should not be awarding a mark based on perception or the average for a pool.
We don't know why the average is what it is. There might be refs that were observed on more challenging games making the average mark higher than an average performance.
An example scenario
The average today is 71.5. Mr observer witnesses an average performance so he works to around the 71.5 mark.
In six months time the average has increased to 72.5. so should Mr observer work to 72.5 as the average for the pool. Which would mean referee A loses put a whole mark based on the average at the time of his observation.
And you can also reverse that by saying the average decreased. Referee B then loses out.
The average is a red herring, there might be 1 referee had a Stormer and for a massive 74 which pulls the current average up until more observations are completed to bring it down.
Your position in the list will give you a better idea of how my it scores V your colleagues.... If your below average but in the top half its more likely your score is closer to average than you think despite being some decimal places away from the advertised average.
Last edited:
This is the whole point... it does not matter what the Observer intends. The Observer makes notes, as alluded to by Rusty, enters the notes (with supporting times and outcomes from the referee's actions) against the template and the report software does the rest.
If there's no evidence in the notes that a referee did something which had a beneficial effect on their control of the match, then they cannot be lauded for that and the mark increased from the base point of 7. If there's no evidence that the referee did something which had a detrimental effect on their control of the match, then they cannot have marks deducted from the base point of 7.
In fact IIRC, there has to be 2 examples of the good/bad thing for it to have an effect on the mark. If there's only one, then it rates alongside the status of the observer just didn't like it and has no effect on the mark. Observers also should be looking to include anything which impacts on the mark in the de-brief, so not able to slip it into the report later.
The average mark should have no impact on the mark received - none at all.
Last edited:
I've been watching this thread with interest and empathy - I've certainly been to that dark place and I doubt there are many who haven't. To be fair, I've also come off a game thinking my performance was distinctly average and Mr. Observer on the day has thought I was great, so I try not to get too up or down about observations - try, but mostly fail on the downside.
I do think there is a problem with the current system, and I say that without any axe to grind having got through 4-3 last season.
When it was first introduced, I thought the idea was that 7s, which equated to an overall score of 70, was the expected performance level and should be the norm- i.e. a performance everyone expects of a referee at that level, which should neither get you promoted nor reclassified. So if you got unlucky and had a game where nothing much happened, and you couldn't do any more than deliver a competent performance 'as expected', the worst that would happen is you got a middle-of-the-range mark.
The problem I see is that's not how it is being implemented. 'Above expected' is not really above expected at all. It is just something that the referee did well that had a beneficial effect, regardless of whether that is something that should be expected of all referees at that level.
So the mark is heavily influenced by how many opportunities there were to 'do something' and how assiduously each individual observer records them. That can push straightforward games from an average mark to one that will frankly get you reclassified, unless the observer thinks that's unfair and looks extra hard for things to write. In my experience some do, some don't.
I don't have a magic answer, but I do think the form needs simplification (fewer categories) and the system needs to allow a straightforward game, competently managed, to deliver a par mark.
I do think there is a problem with the current system, and I say that without any axe to grind having got through 4-3 last season.
When it was first introduced, I thought the idea was that 7s, which equated to an overall score of 70, was the expected performance level and should be the norm- i.e. a performance everyone expects of a referee at that level, which should neither get you promoted nor reclassified. So if you got unlucky and had a game where nothing much happened, and you couldn't do any more than deliver a competent performance 'as expected', the worst that would happen is you got a middle-of-the-range mark.
The problem I see is that's not how it is being implemented. 'Above expected' is not really above expected at all. It is just something that the referee did well that had a beneficial effect, regardless of whether that is something that should be expected of all referees at that level.
So the mark is heavily influenced by how many opportunities there were to 'do something' and how assiduously each individual observer records them. That can push straightforward games from an average mark to one that will frankly get you reclassified, unless the observer thinks that's unfair and looks extra hard for things to write. In my experience some do, some don't.
I don't have a magic answer, but I do think the form needs simplification (fewer categories) and the system needs to allow a straightforward game, competently managed, to deliver a par mark.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Agreed. But if, as the season progresses, the observer knows that his / her historic marks are out of kilter with how other observers are marking (much higher or lower) than they can amend accordingly going forwards. Which is simply about choosing to be more or less generous on those marginal boxes which could very easily be seen to be 7.5 vs 7.0 or 7.5 vs 8.0. Personally, as an observer, I would feel empowered to know whether, eg the 72.0 I gave for what I saw as a good performance was in fact at / above / below the pool average
But how would you know how that compared to the other referees performance? You could potentially be uprating a good performance into an excellent performance based on only having viewed that 1 referees performance