lvl 7 - lvl 1
- Thread starter Jaylen
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Historically (in most counties) you could only progress one level per season. Recent changes to the scheme have been, in part, designed to make progression potentially swifter and more fluid. These days, with significant talent, dedication and a large slice of luck, you could potentially go from Level 7 to Level 2 (National North / South) in around 5 years. Beyond that, your best bet for swift advancement would be to get accepted on to PGMOL's ERDP (Elite Referee Development Plan) which would open up opportunities on the National List and then eventually the top two divisions.
At higher levels, competition is fierce and the standards expected are brutally high, despite what others involved in the sport would have you believe!
At higher levels, competition is fierce and the standards expected are brutally high, despite what others involved in the sport would have you believe!
Many Referees on the ladder towards the higher levels often want to receive credit for competencies when their performance/incidents in the game are often just what is normally expected for the level they are at, but appeal because they have fallen behind the marks of others, rather than for any real justification/fulfil the required criteria eg report is incorrect in Law, or the mark does not match the comments. Fortunately, my experience is that the Appeal Panels are experienced & knowledgeable members who nearly always if not always, reach the correct outcomes.
A colleague of mine has been a L2 since February but only got his L4 for the start of the 2023/24 season (half a season at 4 and then calendar year at 3)
He'll go right to the top I believe, but he's a very rare case, even amongst those who end up being elite referees.
He'll go right to the top I believe, but he's a very rare case, even amongst those who end up being elite referees.
I don't disagree, and I've never appealed a report, and I would only do so if I had video evidence that the observer was factually wrong or that the observer wrote something wrong in law, however there is a problem where some observers mark to the group average and some observers mark to their own average. I'm not saying the observers marking to their own average are wrong, and I think it's absolutely nuts that the average mark for a L3 referee since the turn of the year is 73.2, but it not the perfect system really (but then what is?!)
A good friend of mine who observes level 3s but has currently stopped said he's never ever given a mark as high as 73.5 because he thinks a lot of what he sees is expected of level 3s, but in reality with the way things are, even averaging 73.5 right now is potentially still not gonna get you promoted.
Its not. When I was first promoted to level 3 the average was 72.7. the average has gone up by almost half a mark.
And as you say, an average of 73.5 now is not a promotion mark. The merit table at level 3 is insane.
You go from most level 4 pools averaging 72 and a bit t level 3 where average is 73.2 and then at level too it drops massively.
Perhaps it's the sheer numbers (don't think any other merit table has anything like the numbers) or what I am not sure. But the average mark as is so not sustainable. They will have to promote us all
Marking system is changing (again) this season with less emphasis on MCS and discipline so hopefully that brings the l3 table back into line with those at L2 and L4.
I observe from L7-L2 and have absolutely no idea what any of the groups average are and I am unaware as to how to find out even if I wanted to, which I don’t.
Why do you say that the average mark of 73.2 for a L3 is nuts - too high/too low?
I can understand to a certain degree an Observer marking to their own average because there should be some continuity - let’s say he/she has drafted their report which is higher than the report before, but the gut feeling is that the Referee before was a much better Referee - should the observer leave the current report as is, or to consider whether it’s marked overly high compared to the Referee from the previous game.
For me, I follow the same process for every game, building up layers and based upon timed examples. When I finish my first draft I review to establish whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the strengths and if there isn’t, to review my notes to see if I can strengthen. If I can’t, I may have to remove, but if I can, then it remains. By the time of submission, some of my reports have increased from my initial draft and some have decreased, but the main thing is I have to be content when I press the button and consider it to be a fair & accurate reflection of what I have seen on the day. The same process for AR’s.
Problem then though, as with any time the system / form changes is that some observers will adjust back to a lower average around 72, and some will still mark to the same average as if nothing changed.
I'm not saying there is any better way to do it, neither am I bemoaning either end of the spectrum. It's just not entirely a fair system.
(But then neither is life, and I still think I was a very fortunate recipient of 4-3 promotion, so I'm in no position to complain)
When Neale Barry was Head of Referees for the FA, he considered that the average mark was too high across the aboard eg plus 75. His view was, and I concur, that as per the Handbook at the time, that a normal performance is 70 and a good/very good performance is 73+, with exceptional good performances being 74+ and I think that is all very fair & reasonable & remains today. Some reasons why L2 is lower than L3 average mark is because the threshold for MCS is higher - with video footage & an MCS panel and perhaps there may be different algorithms within some of the competencies etc - observers won’t know because we can’t even see the mark.
That's a fair way to do it, but what I mean is that 73.2 average is too high (imo) but some observers will produce a report knowing that that is the average, so if they believe the referee is ready for promotion based on what they've seen, they might ensure their report reflects that with a 73.7 or higher. But then others will mark as you say, compared to what they've seen and where they've marked previously.
I don't entirely know what point I'm trying to make here, and I think the cream will still eventually rise to the top, but it's just frustrating when you know you've done as well as you can on a game but your observer is a notorious low marker and you come out of a strong performance with a below average mark, despite the observer acknowledging you've done well, but just because a good mark for him is not necessarily a good mark for the group.
Again, I'm not criticising anyone, because no observer goes out with the intent to stitch someone up - quite the opposite, but it feels like it could be a fairer system, I just don't quite know how.
I truly understand the point(s) you are making. What I would also say, is if an Observer is a low marker and then there are high markers, so long as Referees are allocated both types across the season, then on the face of it, it should roughly equal out. I have no idea whether I am considered a high or low marker, but from my own perspective, I consider myself to be a consistent marker, probably because I am a bit mechanical with my processes, though I am content with this.
This is absolutely true, and I've had one this season who's known as a high marker. I think the only slight issue is this leaves it open to 'playing the game'. Referees who come off of their game because they know the observer is a 'low marker'.
I've never done that, and never will, but it's no secret that it happens.
I truly understand the point(s) you are making. What I would also say, is if an Observer is a low marker and then there are high markers, so long as Referees are allocated both types across the season, then on the face of it, it should roughly equal out. I have no idea whether I am considered a high or low marker, but from my own perspective, I consider myself to be a consistent marker, probably because I am a bit mechanical with my processes, though I am content with this
I think that’s true too. There is a current PL who I was due to observe as a L3 when making his way up the ladder & I think he came off because of me - not because he thought I was a low marker, but because he hadn’t come across me before & wasn’t willing to take a risk. For my last game of the season this weekend, a Referee has come off it and did so with me last season as well. It could just be coincidence of course. In any event, I always think it’s strange when it happens, especially when the replacement has a very good game with plenty of incidents & I know he/she has received from me what I believe to be a high mark.
Personally think, that as with step 2, the observer should not see the mark at the end.
I also think the move away from MCS and Discipline having such greater weighting will improve refereeing standards and decision making and also better reward those referees that are proactive and preventative.
From an observer point of view you can only mark what you see and are able to write up in the report.
@DavidObs what I think it is that as you pointed out 73+ was a very good mark, and as @RefereeX and I can both attest to, it is not easy to get marks of 73+ so it's then difficult to rationalise how that can be the average.of the entire merit table.
There are going to be referees whose average mark is as high as 73.5 who aren't going to be considered for promotion who by their average mark suggests they are capable of the next level. It's just hard to rationalise that.
I should add that obviously now we have the LOTG tests and CPDs so there are other factors within our control which can help us push towards a promotion position.
The madness with marks is that the "normal" range is less than 4!
Impossible to differentiate effectively between a 72.5 and a 72.8 when there are so many minor criteria.
See the same issues with university marks and it results in the same thing: grade inflation
Impossible to differentiate effectively between a 72.5 and a 72.8 when there are so many minor criteria.
See the same issues with university marks and it results in the same thing: grade inflation
72.5-72.8 is one section 1 or 2 competency..
Basically one referee is rewarded for MCS and the other doesn't have one to be marked on.
I am in the not sure camp with an observer not seeing the mark for 2 reasons - 1) An observer hasn’t checked everything carefully before pressing the submit button so can send a mark he/she was not intending to send eg by seeing the mark it’s an extra check to ensure all is correct and 2) By counting up the number of Above-Expected’s etc, an Observer can normally tell what roughly the mark is - so to a certain degree defeats the object.
I certainly agree with your 2nd paragraph - definitely for Step 3-6 football, as well as your last para and much in-between.
Whilst I did/do agree with Neale Barry’s philosophy for marking, it has had 2 notable impacts - 1) The range of marks that used to be the case was spread more widely so there was a noticeable offence between those at the top end, the bottom end and those in the middle - this is no longer the case. 2) With the now lower averaging, there is a big squeeze, so the difference between top, middle and bottom, but especially the middle and the top is probably around only 0.5 of a mark, so every mark any Observer provides has an impact - both good and not so good.
Last edited: