The Ref Stop

Seasonal 5-4

The system works better now imo.

It allows the FA to take a more holistic approach to promotion than simple merit based which I think everyone here will agree has it's flaws, as does any system I add.

Ultimately you finish in the top 1-3 you are unlucky to not get promoted automatically. So no issues there. This is based on a range of factors and less weight given to club marks can only be a good thing, right?

You then have a cohort of referees behind whom are all ranked within probably a tolerance or 0.1-0.3 of a mark. Why not take a look at all of them and pick who you think is best based on the outcomes of your analysis of their performance at an assessment day.

No one gets to the assessment day by luck. If you get picked from core you have performed well in the merit table (top 25%) and have then performed in core (been watched 4 times by your coach who has written a report) and attended the sessions engages with the content.

If you finished high enough in the merit table to be invited you deserve your shot.

My view is that the fluidity in the system needs to increase. We need annual reclassification as well as promotion. So that we aren't just stacking up.

And we need more observation (this is the challenge) as currently you get observer on less than 25% of games meaning you need those games to go well or that's it season over.
 
The Ref Stop
JamesL said:
The system works better now imo.

It allows the FA to take a more holistic approach to promotion than simple merit based which I think everyone here will agree has it's flaws, as does any system I add.

Ultimately you finish in the top 1-3 you are unlucky to not get promoted automatically. So no issues there. This is based on a range of factors and less weight given to club marks can only be a good thing, right?

You then have a cohort of referees behind whom are all ranked within probably a tolerance or 0.1-0.3 of a mark. Why not take a look at all of them and pick who you think is best based on the outcomes of your analysis of their performance at an assessment day.

No one gets to the assessment day by luck. If you get picked from core you have performed well in the merit table (top 25%) and have then performed in core (been watched 4 times by your coach who has written a report) and attended the sessions engages with the content.

If you finished high enough in the merit table to be invited you deserve your shot.

My view is that the fluidity in the system needs to increase. We need annual reclassification as well as promotion. So that we aren't just stacking up.

And we need more observation (this is the challenge) as currently you get observer on less than 25% of games meaning you need those games to go well or that's it season over.
Click to expand...
Definitely agree with all of that James.
 
JamesL said:
The system works better now imo.

It allows the FA to take a more holistic approach to promotion than simple merit based which I think everyone here will agree has it's flaws, as does any system I add.

Ultimately you finish in the top 1-3 you are unlucky to not get promoted automatically. So no issues there. This is based on a range of factors and less weight given to club marks can only be a good thing, right?

You then have a cohort of referees behind whom are all ranked within probably a tolerance or 0.1-0.3 of a mark. Why not take a look at all of them and pick who you think is best based on the outcomes of your analysis of their performance at an assessment day.

No one gets to the assessment day by luck. If you get picked from core you have performed well in the merit table (top 25%) and have then performed in core (been watched 4 times by your coach who has written a report) and attended the sessions engages with the content.

If you finished high enough in the merit table to be invited you deserve your shot.

My view is that the fluidity in the system needs to increase. We need annual reclassification as well as promotion. So that we aren't just stacking up.

And we need more observation (this is the challenge) as currently you get observer on less than 25% of games meaning you need those games to go well or that's it season over.
Click to expand...
Can you explain something to me. I don't know a lot about this process.

If somebody finishes 11th in the merit table (i don't really know what this is or how many refs get automatically promoted) but let's pretend it's the top 10 only who get automatically promoted.

Is there any chance that a person who finishes 12th on this table gets invited to the assessment day but the person in 11th does not get invited?

How are the invites to this assessment day decided? Is it the next 20 who were 11-30th in the merit table (working on my fictional idea of 10 automatics)?

If you did well on the merit table but you are not invited to the assessment day can a referee appeal?

Is this whole process transparent to the referees involved or is it based in anonymity?
 
Kent Ref said:
Can you explain something to me. I don't know a lot about this process.

If somebody finishes 11th in the merit table (i don't really know what this is or how many refs get automatically promoted) but let's pretend it's the top 10 only who get automatically promoted.

Is there any chance that a person who finishes 12th gets on this table gets invited to the assessment day but the person in 11th does not get invited?

How are the invites to this assessment day decided? Is it the next 20 who were 11-30th in the merit table (working on my fictional idea of 10 automatics)?

If you did well on the merit table but you are not invited to the assessment day can a referee appeal?

Is this whole process transparent to the referees involved or is it based in annonymity?
Click to expand...
There are 2 ways a referee can be invited to assessment day. Strictly from the merit table, or by being nominated by their CORE group if they are on the national CORE program.
Each CORE region may nominate one person, level 3 or 4, who they feel is ready for promotion, to attend the assessment day.

On the merit table basis, if the referee who finished 12th is invited (on merit table basis), and the referee who finished 11th has completed all the necessary criteria in terms of games refereed and observations received, then they should also be expected to be invited yes.

But in answer to your question, yes the CORE invitation does mean that a lower ranked referee may be invited while a higher ranked referee isn't. That is, of course, an advantage to referees on the national CORE program, however the national CORE program has now opened up so that anyone at level 3 or 4 can be a part of it by attending a trial which they would have been invited to by finishing in the top X% of the merit table. The CORE program does have flaws, however it also has dedicated coaches that should have a good idea of how well their referees are performing, arguably better placed to make judgement on them than observers who see them referee one game which may be a good or a bad day at the office.

Edit to add:
In answer to your bottom 2 questions, no a referee can't appeal their lack of invitation to assessment day... and the process is as transparent as it can be... every referee gets to see their final position in the overall merit table at the end of proceedings, but obviously the process regarding the CORE nominations is not transparent as I don't really see how / why it would
 
bester said:
Even before the assessment days refs were promoted ahead of other refs who were higher on the merit table.
Click to expand...
That is definitely true and not much if any transparency, though I think it is safe to say that some of these lower merit table promotions were for geographical reasons. Unfair, but it did happen. I don’t know if this still happens but it shouldn’t imho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top