The Ref Stop

MOAS Observer reports

Big Cat said:
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
Click to expand...
That used to be the system, then the first you knew you had been assessed (as it was in those days) was you got an assessment though the post (again pre-email). That was thought to be unfair, as you didn't get a verbal de-brief or the chance to clarify any questions the assessor had.

You have stories of assessors standing behind trees or in their cars, as grassroots matches..
 
The Ref Stop
lincs22 said:
That used to be the system, then the first you knew you had been assessed (as it was in those days) was you got an assessment though the post (again pre-email). That was thought to be unfair, as you didn't get a verbal de-brief or the chance to clarify any questions the assessor had.

You have stories of assessors standing behind trees or in their cars, as grassroots matches..
Click to expand...
Happened to me, I got a phone call on the evening of the game from the assessor. There was literally no one at the pitch other than players and a couple of subs, he can only have been sat in his car watching from there.

Unannounced observations don't work for a number of reasons ...
  • The observer needs to be able to listen to the pre-match instructions.
  • The club would still need to know that the observer was coming, and inevitably would end up telling the referee.
  • The observer and match officials are likely to bump into each other at some point in the ground, most likely in the boardroom.
  • Even if the above doesn't happen, at least one of the match officials is going to see someone sitting in the stand writing notes, especially at step 5 when crowds are often very small.
 
RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is the FIFA marking - is it the 8,3-8,4 good/expected, max 7,9 for error in law, similar to what we use here?

At grassroots, we struggled to enough observations and the paperwork was far too onerous, particularly to make sure the host of new refs get seen/feedback, so most have been shifted to a lite questionnaire and mark out of ten. This means we can go and watch 2-3 matches in an evening and give a meaningful report to get beginners to the right levels quickly.
 
santa sangria said:
What is the FIFA marking - is it the 8,3-8,4 good/expected, max 7,9 for error in law, similar to what we use here?

At grassroots, we struggled to enough observations and the paperwork was far too onerous, particularly to make sure the host of new refs get seen/feedback, so most have been shifted to a lite questionnaire and mark out of ten. This means we can go and watch 2-3 matches in an evening and give a meaningful report to get beginners to the right levels quickly.
Click to expand...
Yes, start on 8.3, 7.9 for an incorrect KMD, etc. I do get the paperwork being onerous, but English observers will tell you how long observations at L4 and above take to complete, it couldn't really be any more onerous.
 
santa sangria said:
What is the FIFA marking - is it the 8,3-8,4 good/expected, max 7,9 for error in law, similar to what we use here?

At grassroots, we struggled to enough observations and the paperwork was far too onerous, particularly to make sure the host of new refs get seen/feedback, so most have been shifted to a lite questionnaire and mark out of ten. This means we can go and watch 2-3 matches in an evening and give a meaningful report to get beginners to the right levels quickly.
Click to expand...
The revised system in England has cut down the paperwork at grassroots considerably, with just headings about what went well and a little bit of advice as to improvement. Around 10 minutes to complete and send.
The first observations are at Level 5 to 4, and the revised form there takes perhaps half an hour to complete and send.
For observations (reporting on all three match officials) involving referees at Level 3 or Level 4, around 2 to 2.5 hours is fairly standard.
 
ChasObserverRefDeveloper said:
The revised system in England has cut down the paperwork at grassroots considerably, with just headings about what went well and a little bit of advice as to improvement. Around 10 minutes to complete and send.
The first observations are at Level 5 to 4, and the revised form there takes perhaps half an hour to complete and send.
For observations (reporting on all three match officials) involving referees at Level 3 or Level 4, around 2 to 2.5 hours is fairly standard.
Click to expand...
Just did my first 5-4 observation yesterday. Report to write tomorrow, so I will let you know how long it takes.

Did a 7-6 match day report a couple of weeks ago. Took me 15 mins at the most.
 
Kes said:
I must be doing it wrong then!! :D

Never done a 5-4 that took me less than 2 hours to complete from top to bottom.
Click to expand...
Did one yesterday - 30 mins to complete. But no cautions, barely any fouls, no major development points and one one minor development point. A step 7 game with CAR;s.

Yes, a nothing game; but a more difficult game would have more to consider and write-about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kes
RustyRef said:
Happened to me, I got a phone call on the evening of the game from the assessor. There was literally no one at the pitch other than players and a couple of subs, he can only have been sat in his car watching from there.

Unannounced observations don't work for a number of reasons ...
  • The observer needs to be able to listen to the pre-match instructions.
  • The club would still need to know that the observer was coming, and inevitably would end up telling the referee.
  • The observer and match officials are likely to bump into each other at some point in the ground, most likely in the boardroom.
  • Even if the above doesn't happen, at least one of the match officials is going to see someone sitting in the stand writing notes, especially at step 5 when crowds are often very small.
Click to expand...
Agree that unannounced observations is a flawed system. But I do think there is some benefit to exploring if anonymous observers could be introduced, at least until you turn up at the game.

Something along the lines of "you are being observed on this match, please reply with your anticipated arrival time and that information will be forwarded to the observer" might help stop people deliberately dodging the "bad" observers? Would need to work out systems for alerting observers to cancellations etc, but none of that is an insurmountable challenge.
 
GraemeS said:
Agree that unannounced observations is a flawed system. But I do think there is some benefit to exploring if anonymous observers could be introduced, at least until you turn up at the game.

Something along the lines of "you are being observed on this match, please reply with your anticipated arrival time and that information will be forwarded to the observer" might help stop people deliberately dodging the "bad" observers? Would need to work out systems for alerting observers to cancellations etc, but none of that is an insurmountable challenge.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is a reasonable suggestion. Would need coding changes on MOAS though so would probably need about 5 attempts and 10 years to get it right 😂

I don't think it is that common for a referee to come off a game because of the appointed observer. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I think it is very rare, especially these days where do you can't have observers with an average mark 10+ higher or lower than another.
 
RustyRef said:
Yeah, that is a reasonable suggestion. Would need coding changes on MOAS though so would probably need about 5 attempts and 10 years to get it right 😂

I don't think it is that common for a referee to come off a game because of the appointed observer. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I think it is very rare, especially these days where do you can't have observers with an average mark 10+ higher or lower than another.
Click to expand...
Speaking with colleagues over the last 18 months, it's not uncommon. It's not common either. Somewhere inbetween
Anyway, just because the marks are not distributed between 60 and 100 anymore, that doesn't detract from today's 'relatively high and low marks'. It just means that an Observer who marks 0.5 less that average (say 71.8 average) is a killer compared to the average observer (72.3 ish)
It's all relative
 
Big Cat said:
Speaking with colleagues over the last 18 months, it's not uncommon. It's not common either. Somewhere inbetween
Anyway, just because the marks are not distributed between 60 and 100 anymore, that doesn't detract from today's 'relatively high and low marks'. It just means that an Observer who marks 0.5 less that average (say 71.8 average) is a killer compared to the average observer (72.3 ish)
It's all relative
Click to expand...
I think you're right. The two most common scenarios from my experience are either

a) at Level 4 where a harshly marked observation will make a material difference, given the low number of observations per season
b) at higher levels in situations where referees are 'going well' towards the end of a marking period and attempting to protect their existing average.

I've personally never done it ... but almost regretted it when given an 'average' mark (that nearly scuppered my promotion to L3) in a game with 8 cautions, across 6 different caution codes and no development areas offered :)
 
RustyRef said:
Yeah, that is a reasonable suggestion. Would need coding changes on MOAS though so would probably need about 5 attempts and 10 years to get it right 😂

I don't think it is that common for a referee to come off a game because of the appointed observer. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I think it is very rare, especially these days where do you can't have observers with an average mark 10+ higher or lower than another.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter how wide the range is - if scores are realistically between 70 and 74 and someone becomes known for never scoring above 72, that's someone who certain people are going to avoid.

And like @Big Cat, I don't think it's particularly common, but I've been in changing rooms where "I had to pick up a game at short notice because X was being observed by Y so he came off it" is said in a very matter-of-fact way. It's not a huge problem, but I also definitely believe it happens, and it can be a huge blow to morale for quality referees who do the games as they come and narrowly miss out to a colleague who was more selective about which observers they turn up for.
 
I've always gone with everyone has to have them at some point, especially true in the South West where we do not have a significant number of observers. In a national merit table that does have its challenges but if you duck out of games you run risk of not having enough games or observations anyway and you might get the observer back in the future and then it's a sore thumb.
 
The problem here is "word of mouth" is sometimes very inaccurate and just borne of rumours. I think I was one of the highest markers on the supply league, but one referee made it his mission to tell anyone and everyone that I had cost him his promotion to L3. I hadn't, I had marked him down for flashing cards, to the extent I had no idea who was being cautioned, but he decided that was my fault rather than his. So I somehow got a reputation that was completely wrong, and any referee choosing to come off games based on that were potentially losing marks rather than protecting their average.
 
Russell Jones said:
I think you're right. The two most common scenarios from my experience are either

a) at Level 4 where a harshly marked observation will make a material difference, given the low number of observations per season
b) at higher levels in situations where referees are 'going well' towards the end of a marking period and attempting to protect their existing average.

I've personally never done it ... but almost regretted it when given an 'average' mark (that nearly scuppered my promotion to L3) in a game with 8 cautions, across 6 different caution codes and no development areas offered :)
Click to expand...
RustyRef said:
The problem here is "word of mouth" is sometimes very inaccurate and just borne of rumours. I think I was one of the highest markers on the supply league, but one referee made it his mission to tell anyone and everyone that I had cost him his promotion to L3. I hadn't, I had marked him down for flashing cards, to the extent I had no idea who was being cautioned, but he decided that was my fault rather than his. So I somehow got a reputation that was completely wrong, and any referee choosing to come off games based on that were potentially losing marks rather than protecting their average.
Click to expand...
Two points here from a retired Observer.

In response to Russell, just as a referee can only referee the game in front of them, the Observer can only report on the game watched. If the game is uneventful, it makes life so much more difficult for the Observer. If the referee has a stinker, they have an obligation to offer advice to help them avoid that sort of game in the future.

In response to Rusty, couldn't agree more. Had a couple of referees who had absolute stinkers yet blamed me for falling short when it came to promotion time. I was consistent, my reports were fair and my marks almost bang on the season average. Every one of my reports was written as if Alan Wilkie himself had been standing next to me at the game. I didn't know who else was there, so if it went wrong, then it got reported and advice offered to avoid recurrence.

Until someone comes up with a better system, you work with what you've got.
 
Up to the COVID changes, there were referees in the Yorkshire area would who had "come off games" due the observer...
But, these referees were identified, given what looked like good matches (which they accepted), and the observer got appointed at 7.00 on the Friday night for the Saturday game. Both me and @Brian Hamilton know who the appointing officer was and did get a few of these..:)
 
As an aside i used to live 3 doors away from a FL Assistant referee.

In March one season (over 10 years ago) he knew he was rated "top 3" at that time.

He went "injured" for the rest of the season. I asked him why as i saw him running etc and he said to preserve his place on the FL the following season.

He stayed on the FL the next season but i assume this was a common ploy by some (back in the day).
 
lincs22 said:
Up to the COVID changes, there were referees in the Yorkshire area would who had "come off games" due the observer...
But, these referees were identified, given what looked like good matches (which they accepted), and the observer got appointed at 7.00 on the Friday night for the Saturday game. Both me and @Brian Hamilton know who the appointing officer was and did get a few of these..:)
Click to expand...
Good,this is how it has to work

Refs dropping off games 'injured' winds me up. Cheating the system.

Pleased to see you're back at it (on a different topic!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top