MOAS Observer reports

[JamesL]

As a first season L4 - it amuses me when I look back over my first few games, there's a direct correlation between the winning team and a higher club mark and the losing team and a considerably lower mark....... I'm guessing this is the norm for everyone?

Yes. Generally speaking.
I have also had games where both clubs have marked and games where both have scored me highly!
I think the form is definitely better than plucking a number from mid air but it didn't solve the problem as the FA had hoped and this is why the FA are moving away from club marking having such as high a weighting in the final merit table.

 

[FirsFox40]

You also get the massive disparity of clubs going “yeah they were alright, 70” and “yeah they were alright, 100” depending on how arsed they can be.

(Exaggerating, but the point stands)

 

[Big Cat]

Club Marks reflect the two-way fractured relationship between referees and the rest of the football community

Anyway, aside from the lazy 70 ' blanket expected' reports we get (which do our heads in), my marks have broadly aligned with what I'd expect.
Curiously, the highest combined club mark has come in the game with my worst observation report and the lowest combined club mark in the game in which the observer scored me 73.3... I can somewhat understand why these two games produced that extreme outcome
This contradiction is interesting even if I accept the discrepancy must be more pronounced in my games than is normal

Anyway, it's all too easy for us to discount, ignore and discredit the marks given to us by our customers when we don't get what we want, but I think the scores hold value, maybe because I see myself as one of them as well as one of us

 

[HowayRef]

Good to know it's a common theme.....!

 

[lincs22]

Anyway, aside from the lazy 70 ' blanket expected' reports we get (which do our heads in),

If there is nothing in the game or you don't show anything "above expected", how can we mark you up? Some matches just happen, and you have to accept that it will be a 70, but the aim in these games is make it a 71 and not a 69....
The reports are so tailored to "timed examples", so no example = no comment (unfortunately)...

 

[george.g]

but the aim in these games is make it a 71 and not a 69....

Is this in reference to observer or club marks?

 

[Big Cat]

If there is nothing in the game or you don't show anything "above expected", how can we mark you up? Some matches just happen, and you have to accept that it will be a 70, but the aim in these games is make it a 71 and not a 69....
The reports are so tailored to "timed examples", so no example = no comment (unfortunately)...

You've misunderstood
I'm referring to Club Marks when talking about the 'lazy standard expected down the card' score of 70

Anyway, I don't think an Observer score of 69 exists for Level 4's and above. The scores range from extremes of around 70.5 to 74.0
Which is stupid because even the worst report is 'above expected'

 

[Big Cat]

Observer Reports and the scoring just don't make any sense to me
70 should be the mean/median/mode score
It makes it unachievable to standardise scores when the par score is based on an arbitrary number of 7.5+ count.
Same with the Match Day Coaching.... emphasis on blowing smoke up a ref's backside... three strengths, but only one section for development
The emphasis is always on awarding marks and you've really got to mess up quite badly to get a 6.5
Maybe if they didn't call a 6.5 a MAJOR DEV, that mark could be dished out without fear of destroying a ref's ego. The use of terminology like OUTSTANDING is also hyperbole

One for @RefJef but I also don't get why 7.0 is the par score on a competency. Just make it 0.0 and negate the need for all this dividing by 100 and so on. Par Observer Report is then 0.0 ranging from around -2.5 to +2.5 instead of a score out of 100 in which 96 of those numbers are irrelevant

 

[es1]

Observer Reports and the scoring just don't make any sense to me
70 should be the mean/median/mode score. It makes it unachievable to standardise scores when the par score is based on an arbitrary number of 7.5+ count.
Same with the Match Day Coaching.... emphasis on blowing smoke up a ref's backside... three strengths, but only one section for development
The emphasis is always on awarding marks and you've really got to mess up quite badly to get a 6.5
Maybe if they didn't call a 6.5 a MAJOR DEV, that mark could be dished out without fear of destroying a ref's ego. Maybe also, use of terminology like OUTSTANDING is also hyperbole. I'm telling you all now, I've had a good number of 8s and I whilst i did well in those categories, to call it outstanding is a misuse of terminology

it's too easy for a decision to be 'supportable'

 

[Big Cat]

it's too easy for a decision to be 'supportable'

Supportable sounds like 'Standard Expected' to me

 

[es1]

Supportable sounds like 'Standard Expected' to me

to me it means (from the observers pov) 'i think you may be wrong but i didnt have a credible angle to say for sure'

 

[Big Cat]

to me it means (from the observers pov) 'i think you may be wrong but i didnt have a credible angle to say for sure'

The fundamental problem at our Level is that there's too much luck involved. It's blindingly obvious to me
I was second in the Merit Table after 4 observations last year. The fifth game came in and I knew I was in trouble. Top v Bottom on 4G. I did OK in the game, but it was an utter dead-rubber and the resulting 72.5 took me down to 6th and out of contention. In hindsight, I should've come off the game, which is a real shame

One thing I've noticed, is just like if you get the chance to caution or dismiss a player in an observed game, if you get the opportunity to award a PK, give it. Scoring is a function of positive action, even when that action is subjectively not merited. For arguments sake, let's say you get a dubious penalty shout. If you turn it down, that's it..... no points. If you give it, a can of worms of scoring opportunity is opened. You have the resulting disorder to shine through, the PK to manage and the silver bullet of something happening during with the PK like a retake. Players will be fired up and the rest of the game holds potential for a 73+
On the contrary, there's little merit in competently refereeing the game to achieve anonymity

Now I know this will spark debate and controversy, but there's some weight to the argument I've just made and not enough gravity with the counter-argument. The game which is full of Incident should carry equal chance of a really poor score. Such a game, full of everything, should be a high risk game for the Referee. Instead, it's what we all pray for

 

[es1]

The fundamental problem at our Level is that there's too much luck involved. It's blindingly obvious to me
I was second in the Merit Table after 4 observations last year. The fifth game came in and I knew I was in trouble. Top v Bottom on 4G. I did OK in the game, but it was an utter dead-rubber and the resulting 72.5 took me down to 6th and out of contention. In hindsight, I should've come off the game, which is a real shame

One thing I've noticed, is just like if you get the chance to caution or dismiss a player in an observed game, if you get the opportunity to award a PK, give it. Scoring is a function of positive action, even when that action is subjectively not merited. For arguments sake, let's say you get a dubious penalty shout. If you turn it down, that's it..... no points. If you give it, a can of worms of scoring opportunity is opened. You have the resulting disorder to shine through, the PK to manage and the silver bullet of something happening during with the PK like a retake. Players will be fired up and the rest of the game holds potential for a 73+
On the contrary, there's little merit in competently refereeing the game to achieve anonymity

Now I know this will spark debate and controversy, but there's some weight to the argument I've just made and not enough gravity with the counter-argument. The game which is full of Incident should carry equal chance of a really poor score. Such a game, full of everything, should be a high risk game for the Referee. Instead, it's what we all pray for

Agree with much of this

Though I hate the idea of 'playing the game' and giving backwords to protect your position. The sort of thing that should get picked up much better and prevented

 

[lincs22]

The fundamental problem at our Level is that there's too much luck involved. It's blindingly obvious to me
I was second in the Merit Table after 4 observations last year. The fifth game came in and I knew I was in trouble. Top v Bottom on 4G. I did OK in the game, but it was an utter dead-rubber and the resulting 72.5 took me down to 6th and out of contention. In hindsight, I should've come off the game, which is a real shame

One thing I've noticed, is just like if you get the chance to caution or dismiss a player in an observed game, if you get the opportunity to award a PK, give it. Scoring is a function of positive action, even when that action is subjectively not merited. For arguments sake, let's say you get a dubious penalty shout. If you turn it down, that's it..... no points. If you give it, a can of worms of scoring opportunity is opened. You have the resulting disorder to shine through, the PK to manage and the silver bullet of something happening during with the PK like a retake. Players will be fired up and the rest of the game holds potential for a 73+
On the contrary, there's little merit in competently refereeing the game to achieve anonymity

Now I know this will spark debate and controversy, but there's some weight to the argument I've just made and not enough gravity with the counter-argument. The game which is full of Incident should carry equal chance of a really poor score. Such a game, full of everything, should be a high risk game for the Referee. Instead, it's what we all pray for

Yes, there is something to be said for these points. Yes, coming off a game can protect your position in the promotion table, but creates bad-will with the Appointments Sec, so you may think you win missing this game, but get something worse later in the season, where there is no chance to recover from. Promotion is a function of the promotion tables and the recommendations of the appointments officials ....

On the penalty point - yes, again; you create a scoring opportunity. But all it takes is an observer to disagree with your decision and then anything that follows is is as a result of the wrong decision. So, a Mass Con arising could be seen as the loss of control arising from a wrong decision. you may gain a .5 from the observer, but loss 10+ from both teams - which would kill your club score average...

You need to be pro-active in a "nothing game" - always be seen to speak with the offender when there is an advantage; keep on top of potential time-wasting (not just the last 10 minutes); support for the AR's (be seen and heard by the observer);

The little things make up the extra .5 to .75 you can achieve.

 

[JamesL]

The fundamental problem at our Level is that there's too much luck involved. It's blindingly obvious to me
I was second in the Merit Table after 4 observations last year. The fifth game came in and I knew I was in trouble. Top v Bottom on 4G. I did OK in the game, but it was an utter dead-rubber and the resulting 72.5 took me down to 6th and out of contention. In hindsight, I should've come off the game, which is a real shame

One thing I've noticed, is just like if you get the chance to caution or dismiss a player in an observed game, if you get the opportunity to award a PK, give it. Scoring is a function of positive action, even when that action is subjectively not merited. For arguments sake, let's say you get a dubious penalty shout. If you turn it down, that's it..... no points. If you give it, a can of worms of scoring opportunity is opened. You have the resulting disorder to shine through, the PK to manage and the silver bullet of something happening during with the PK like a retake. Players will be fired up and the rest of the game holds potential for a 73+
On the contrary, there's little merit in competently refereeing the game to achieve anonymity

Now I know this will spark debate and controversy, but there's some weight to the argument I've just made and not enough gravity with the counter-argument. The game which is full of Incident should carry equal chance of a really poor score. Such a game, full of everything, should be a high risk game for the Referee. Instead, it's what we all pray for

There is merit in this and i can understand how this is your view from your experience but it doesn't align with my own story.

My highest mark in my promotion season was a 6-0. No cards. High ranked v low ranked team game. My second lowest mark: Highest incident game all season (8 yellows 2 reds, 3 KMIs all backed by observer).

I don't doubt you are probably right in some of your assertions but I can only speak from my experience..I totally agree alongside competency, there is an element of what is probably best described as luck.. (right game, right observer etc.) And you have to believe that you will get what you deserve, even if you don't get it as quick or in the fashion you'd like. (Not talking about you specifically by they way )

Yes some will not achieve what they ought to have for factors outside of refereeing performance and some will get pushed through. But, this is no different to any other walk of life and is not a refereeing specific problem.

Is there a better solution out there? I think whatever the solution is used there will be folks feel hard done by the system and want change. Have to accept it is what it is and work to do you best within the parameters that are set.

 

[Big Cat]

Yes, there is something to be said for these points. Yes, coming off a game can protect your position in the promotion table, but creates bad-will with the Appointments Sec, so you may think you win missing this game, but get something worse later in the season, where there is no chance to recover from. Promotion is a function of the promotion tables and the recommendations of the appointments officials ....

On the penalty point - yes, again; you create a scoring opportunity. But all it takes is an observer to disagree with your decision and then anything that follows is is as a result of the wrong decision. So, a Mass Con arising could be seen as the loss of control arising from a wrong decision. you may gain a .5 from the observer, but loss 10+ from both teams - which would kill your club score average...

You need to be pro-active in a "nothing game" - always be seen to speak with the offender when there is an advantage; keep on top of potential time-wasting (not just the last 10 minutes); support for the AR's (be seen and heard by the observer);

The little things make up the extra .5 to .75 you can achieve.

There is merit in this and i can understand how this is your view from your experience but it doesn't align with my own story.

My highest mark in my promotion season was a 6-0. No cards. High ranked v low ranked team game. My second lowest mark: Highest incident game all season (8 yellows 2 reds, 3 KMIs all backed by observer).

I don't doubt you are probably right in some of your assertions but I can only speak from my experience..I totally agree alongside competency, there is an element of what is probably best described as luck.. (right game, right observer etc.) And you have to believe that you will get what you deserve, even if you don't get it as quick or in the fashion you'd like. (Not talking about you specifically by they way )

Yes some will not achieve what they ought to have for factors outside of refereeing performance and some will get pushed through. But, this is no different to any other walk of life and is not a refereeing specific problem.

Is there a better solution out there? I think whatever the solution is used there will be folks feel hard done by the system and want change. Have to accept it is what it is and work to do you best within the parameters that are set.

Yes, I mean don't get me wrong. It's much easier to identify potential flaws in a process than it is to fix them

One big improvement is the split season which mitigates the motivational killer of a poor score in August/September, but this has caused the FA a big headache whenever they make changes to the process (as indicated by the removal of the stats page whilst they figured out some equivalence problems)

I note they account for performance over consecutive seasons for demotion (reclassification). They should consider this for promotion
My concern is that any referee could have a lucky run, but there'll be other much more dependable refs languishing on say, the 20th percentile, year after year (The Law of Big Numbers is what I'm referring to)

I completely understand that no system is perfect

 

[JamesL]

I note they account for performance over consecutive seasons for demotion (reclassification). They should consider this for promotion

As I understand it something like this will be in place now with those narrowly missing out, and have narrowly missed out in prior seasons, being invited to interview for promotion. (I can see how this will be perceived but it is an improvement) none the less.

 

[bester]

Does the referee really need to know who the appointed observer is?
Would stop refs crying off games when they get certain observers.
Suppose some refs would start 'pulling a hammy' in the warm-up ..

 

[Big Cat]

Does the referee really need to know who the appointed observer is?
Would stop refs crying off games when they get certain observers.
Suppose some refs would start 'pulling a hammy' in the warm-up ..

Wouldn't bother me if observations were unannounced. Even better, don't see why the Ref should even know they're being observed until the debrief

 

[RustyRef]

There is certainly an element of luck involved, but it is much, much better than it used to be. When I came through at level 4 the marks ranged from 50 to 95. I had one game where I didn't think I'd done much, no KMD's, only a couple of cautions, and I got 84. The following game I had several KMDs, got them all right, got nothing wrong, and got 72. Marks that far apart made a huge difference, you could change 3 bands just on the basis of one performance. I didn't go up one season with an average of over 79, the following season I finished top with an average of over 80, but I am the first to admit I got lucky as if I'd had just one low marker, like the one that gave me 72 in an earlier season, I'd have missed out. I suspect the league were looking after me with the observers as they knew just how disappointed was not to go up the previous season (one game had killed me). My marks in the promotion season were 80,84,82,79,79,80, obviously there is zero chance of getting marks like that these days.

The answer, in my opinion, is to move to FIFA style marking, like they use in almost every other country. The problem with that though is an incorrect KMD is a disaster, and without video evidence it is very much the observer's opinion versus yours.