A&H

Level 4 Observer Reports

I'm encouraged to read about the processes observers follow to record every incident and marry them up to tick boxes when the referees' actions had an impact on the game. To some extent, that might weaken the relationship between subjectivity and the derived score. In my mind however, it reinforces the notion that a challenging game is a necessity to achieve a decent score
Maybe by chance or maybe by repute, I've had two decent appointmens this season, both observed. Both turned into very busy games, hence leaving me in pole position on merit. I say that, because likely the League will be aware and continue to put me on challenging games, perhaps also prioritising observers and snowballing my good fortune... reflecting the amount of luck involved

A very interesting subject. Not sure why this doesn't dominate forum talk more than it does. Oh.... I'm forgetting VAR controversy. How remiss of me
 
The Referee Store
Big Cat said:
I'm encouraged to read about the processes observers follow to record every incident and marry them up to tick boxes when the referees' actions had an impact on the game. To some extent, that might weaken the relationship between subjectivity and the derived score. In my mind however, it reinforces the notion that a challenging game is a necessity to achieve a decent score
Maybe by chance or maybe by repute, I've had two decent appointmens this season, both observed. Both turned into very busy games, hence leaving me in pole position on merit. I say that, because likely the League will be aware and continue to put me on challenging games, perhaps also prioritising observers and snowballing my good fortune... reflecting the amount of luck involved

A very interesting subject. Not sure why this doesn't dominate forum talk more than it does. Oh.... I'm forgetting VAR controversy. How remiss of me
Click to expand...
See how the clubs have rated you 😏
Its also possible to pull a big score on a nothing game. You have to hit all the other competencies. And hit them well.
It's worth reading the observer handbook and lear ing a few that you can implement in every game, busy or otherwise. Promotion can be decided on 0.01 of a mark so that little extra thing might be the difference
 
Russell Jones said:
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
Click to expand...
Why should it matter if your marks are out of kilter? If they are, then the Observer coordinator will provide feedback and you can adjust accordingly.

I never felt the need to feel "empowered" as an Observer. It was never about me, it was about helping the referee improve their performance on the field. Observe what you see, record it, put it into the report, job done.
 
Brian Hamilton said:
Why should it matter if your marks are out of kilter? If they are, then the Observer coordinator will provide feedback and you can adjust accordingly.

I never felt the need to feel "empowered" as an Observer. It was never about me, it was about helping the referee improve their performance on the field. Observe what you see, record it, put it into the report, job done.
Click to expand...
I simply mean empowered to do as good and fair a job for each referee as possible. I would hate to be one of 'those' observers who are skewing things (for everyone) by consistently marking materially above or below simply through lack of information that could be readily available.

In essence, if you believe the observer co-ordinator should step in in those situations then I'm just looking for a 'shortcut' to get to the same outcome.

In reality, the only level where I see a real issue is Level 4. At L3 and above, referees are given enough observations that you can afford to take the rough with the smooth and (from what I've seen) the cream generally rises to the top ... exactly why I was never promoted from L3 in the middle! However, with the marking being so tight and L4's generally only receiving around 5 observations, one observer unknowingly giving you an average or below average mark (for what they in fact felt was actually a good performance) can easily end up costing you promotion.
 
es1 said:
Thinking about it, the worst thing I could have done is make the observer aware of how low a marker he is...he might be a bit more generous with my colleagues!
Click to expand...
And it wasn't me.....
 
Having read the observers manual again, I'm thinking subjectivity will always factor heavily. Each 'tick box' requires the observers skill and experience to differentiate between whats expected for l4,3 and 2b.... for example
Presumably, all l4s should be 3 and all 3s should be 2b because we all merit 'above expected' overall. Something doesn't add up there. And it makes no odds that the scoring is tighter now. Today's 73 is yesterday's 79 and and the same applies to low marks. So the range of scores is irrelavent. There are still extremes of decimal places instead of integers
 
Big Cat said:
Having read the observers manual again, I'm thinking subjectivity will always factor heavily. Each 'tick box' requires the observers skill and experience to differentiate between whats expected for l4,3 and 2b.... for example
Presumably, all l4s should be 3 and all 3s should be 2b because we all merit 'above expected' overall. Something doesn't add up there. And it makes no odds that the scoring is tighter now. Today's 73 is yesterday's 79 and and the same applies to low marks. So the range of scores is irrelavent. There are still extremes of decimal places instead of integers
Click to expand...
An interesting issue!
As an observer, if I score someone as "Above expected standard" I am saying they did well in relation to what is expected at their level, not that they deserve promotion.
By definition there will always be some below standard (either in one or two games, or sometimes over a period) and some above, with the majority in the "Meets standard" middle ground.
As the refereeing pyramid is the shape it is, there are obviously limits on the numbers promoted each year from/to each level.
We are lucky to have some very good referees at Level 4 who would find Level 3 daunting, and the same at Level 3 to 2b.
T'was always thus, but the current clearly defined requirements for observers have done away with the previous situation where a 75 in one area was being given as an 84 in another part of the country.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
An interesting issue!
As an observer, if I score someone as "Above expected standard" I am saying they did well in relation to what is expected at their level, not that they deserve promotion.
By definition there will always be some below standard (either in one or two games, or sometimes over a period) and some above, with the majority in the "Meets standard" middle ground.
As the refereeing pyramid is the shape it is, there are obviously limits on the numbers promoted each year from/to each level.
We are lucky to have some very good referees at Level 4 who would find Level 3 daunting, and the same at Level 3 to 2b.
T'was always thus, but the current clearly defined requirements for observers have done away with the previous situation where a 75 in one area was being given as an 84 in another part of the country.
Click to expand...
Exactly that, in saying they are above standard you are saying they did well in that competency in that game, you aren't saying they should be operating at the next level.

No system is perfect, but this one does seem to be fairer for referees, and I say that as someone who benefitted from ridiculously high marks in the past. In the old system the expected mark was 70, yet if you averaged 70 you would be comfortably in the bottom 20%. Even averaging in the high 72s could see you in trouble, especially with the L3 requirement that you had to finish in the top 40% of observer marks at least once every 3 season (don't know if that is still in place). In my last season at L3 I averaged 73 on observations and that left me in the bottom 33% of the national merit table, so clearly observers weren't marking as expected, and that can't happen with the current system.
 
RustyRef said:
Exactly that, in saying they are above standard you are saying they did well in that competency in that game, you aren't saying they should be operating at the next level.

No system is perfect, but this one does seem to be fairer for referees, and I say that as someone who benefitted from ridiculously high marks in the past. In the old system the expected mark was 70, yet if you averaged 70 you would be comfortably in the bottom 20%. Even averaging in the high 72s could see you in trouble, especially with the L3 requirement that you had to finish in the top 40% of observer marks at least once every 3 season (don't know if that is still in place). In my last season at L3 I averaged 73 on observations and that left me in the bottom 33% of the national merit table, so clearly observers weren't marking as expected, and that can't happen with the current system.
Click to expand...
72 leaves you in the bottom 20% even now. 😬
 
What is curious, is that despite 3 closed dates in the period. I've only been given 2 Contrib AR appointments in as many months. And one County AR appointment, whereas younger colleagues have had over a dozen, not to mention FA Youth etc.
Perhaps one way to hinder potential further promotion of an older Ref
 
Big Cat said:
What is curious, is that despite 3 closed dates in the period. I've only been given 2 Contrib AR appointments in as many months. And one County AR appointment, whereas younger colleagues have had over a dozen, not to mention FA Youth etc.
Perhaps one way to hinder potential further promotion of an older Ref
Click to expand...
Why would not receiving AR Appts hinder your promotion?
 
Big Cat said:
Dunno! Assumed you might have to notch up a number of games... no?
Click to expand...
No. Solely based on referee scores and availability. There is no criteria except min 10 games reffed and 5 observed (just what have heard and not sure how official).
Lines definitely don't play a part, I was like 500/800 or something like that for lines.
 
JamesL said:
No. Solely based on referee scores and availability. There is no criteria except min 10 games reffed and 5 observed (just what have heard and not sure how official).
Lines definitely don't play a part, I was like 500/800 or something like that for lines.
Click to expand...
I see. I'm otherwise not overly fussed about the dearth of appointments. Had one or two niggles. Fell off a paddle board and tweaked one of my paws on this holiday of mine so glad to have 8 days left before I'm next on the prowl

Also joined the Floodlit thing. And very happy with Supply League middles. Suppose you can't win'em all
 
Last edited:
Well my first observation at level 4 was an assassination! It was my third game but first observation - first two games were closer in terms of competitiveness but this one was just players on at me from the off, surrounding me at each decision (even when it was an obvious decision) so was frustrating. Whilst it didn’t phase me I think I was maybe too relaxed so didn’t look like I was taking charge/control but they weren’t influencing my decision.. if that makes sense?
 
Keeday said:
Well my first observation at level 4 was an assassination! It was my third game but first observation - first two games were closer in terms of competitiveness but this one was just players on at me from the off, surrounding me at each decision (even when it was an obvious decision) so was frustrating. Whilst it didn’t phase me I think I was maybe too relaxed so didn’t look like I was taking charge/control but they weren’t influencing my decision.. if that makes sense?
Click to expand...
It does, but the basic impression is that you are not in full.control.

How did you stop the players crowding you? Speak with Capt, Caution or just let it continue for the full 90 mins.
 
lincs22 said:
It does, but the basic impression is that you are not in full.control.

How did you stop the players crowding you? Speak with Capt, Caution or just let it continue for the full 90 mins.
Click to expand...
That was the issue, I didn’t. Learnt a lot from the game and the observation and looking to try techniques to stop it/prevent it in future
 
Keeday said:
That was the issue, I didn’t. Learnt a lot from the game and the observation and looking to try techniques to stop it/prevent it in future
Click to expand...
You've gotta be seen to 'tick boxes'
Stop the game.... Restart only once you've done your thing. Publically beckon the player in. Listen, empathise. Then take control and warn against further outbursts. Get the captain in if a sin bin is in the pipeline. Point towards the sin bin to show everyone, including the observer what the cracks is
I don't believe in killing games by calling every foul and so on. But slowing these important dissenting events down is important, both to you and the observer. It gives the players chance to vent their opinion, but also for you to show measured assertion and authority. Otherwise, it all accelerates without interruption to the steady flow of 'advice' from the players to the point that it looks like they're ruling the roost
Honestly, I'm not great at some competencies, but this has always been my strength
Stop. Beckon. Meet. Listen. Empathise. Reframe. Your view is the only one that counts. Warn. Arm gestures (sin bin). Warn. It can all be done quite quickly. The order avoids a squabble. Go again...
 
Big Cat said:
You've gotta be seen to 'tick boxes'
Stop the game.... Restart only once you've done your thing. Publically beckon the player in. Listen, empathise. Then take control and warn against further outbursts. Get the captain in if a sin bin is in the pipeline. Point towards the sin bin to show everyone, including the observer what the cracks is
I don't believe in killing games by calling every foul and so on. But slowing these important dissenting events down is important, both to you and the observer. It gives the players chance to vent their opinion, but also for you to show measured assertion and authority. Otherwise, it all accelerates without interruption to the steady flow of 'advice' from the players to the point that it looks like they're ruling the roost
Honestly, I'm not great at some competencies, but this has always been my strength
Stop. Beckon. Meet. Listen. Empathise. Reframe. Your view is the only one that counts. Warn. Arm gestures (sin bin). Warn. It can all be done quite quickly. The order avoids a squabble. Go again...
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this post.
We have tools available to us: personality, stepped approach, sin bins, cautions, send offs.
We need to use them appropriately and show Mr O that we recognised threats to our match control, and we dealt with them in the right way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top