Sheffield Utd Vs Brighton

[Kent Ref]

Nope. As I understand it they are employed.

You may be right.

But how do you employ a 60+ referee who does not want to retire? What would they do on a permanent contract until the age of 67+?

It's a while back but one of the PL refs who retired mentioned in their book that they were all on 1 year deals which were renewed each season based on performances.

Employment law is a nightmare and you only get certain rights once employed for 2 years on a permanent contract.

 

[JamesL]

You may be right.

I may also be wrong

But how do you employ a 60+ referee who does not want to retire? What would they do on a permanent contract until the age of 67+?

You can't if the referee is meeting the minimum criteria to be maintain their employed status.

However, being employed doesn't mean you have to be appointed to referee games. You could be redeployed/promoted to other roles within the organisation that dont require active refereeing.

It's a while back but one of the PL refs who retired mentioned in their book that they were all on 1 year deals which were renewed each season based on performances.

May have been the case then. May be the case now. But you don't ever here of a referee not having their 1 year deal renewed?

Employment law is a nightmare and you only get certain rights once employed for 2 years on a permanent contract.

There is a case at the moment awaiting judgement from supreme court (HMRC V PGMOL) re: part time referees being considered as employed. They've (HMRC) have lost the first two tribunals and appeal has been heard waiting judgment. The fact this is purely about part time referees (e.g. those outside the select groups) that points towards HMRC being satisfied as to their employment statuses, whatever that may be

 

[Big Cat]

His position was pretty much expected for where the play was. You can't legislate for when a player runs across the front of you and blocks your view, it happens to every referee at every level.

I still don't subscribe to the argument that referees "go safe" with giving a caution instead of red, knowing that VAR will bail them out. VAR bails the game out, not the officials, they still get marked down for an incorrect KMD, they still have to sit in a room at the next training session where PGMOL take their decision apart on TV and tell everyone how terrible it was. So yes, without VAR I think it would have been a missed red card. The referee clearly didn't see it, one of the ARs must have but we don't know what kind of view they had.

Unlike you, I am adamant that the R's do leave far too many KMD's to VAR, although I accept that this is very likely to be a sub-conscious problem
(Webb has admitted that most of his Refs are guilty of this). It's just another unforeseen downside of VAR

It's forgivable that Atwell got this one wrong. However, we both know that if you're observing him and see that challenge from a better angle, you're doing him for a wrong KMS despite him being in an expected position on the FOP

There's one replay angle which shows the nearest AR with an optimal view. It was unforgivable that he did not indicate a red card over Comms

 

[RustyRef]

Unlike you, I am adamant that the R's do leave far too many KMD's to VAR, although I accept that this is very likely to be a sub-conscious problem
(Webb has admitted that most of his Refs are guilty of this). It's just another unforeseen downside of VAR

It's forgivable that Atwell got this one wrong. However, we both know that if you're observing him and see that challenge from a better angle, you're doing him for a wrong KMS despite him being in an expected position on the FOP

There's one replay angle which shows the nearest AR with an optimal view. It was unforgivable that he did not indicate a red card over Comms

There's an image that shows there is no way Attwell could have seen the extent of the contact, he's clearly looking through players. Don't disagree that the AR perhaps should have said red straight away, but he is a long way from it and we don't know how good a view he had of it. His primary responsibility is the offside line, not necessarily a challenge way outside of his credible area.

Perhaps I'm an exception rather than the norm, but I will always take a referee's position into account when deciding what to do. There's a massive difference between them missing something because their positioning is poor to them missing it because someone runs across their (good) position.

 

[RustyRef]

i thought they got round employment law by giving out 1 year fixed contracts.

A fixed contract is still subject to employment law though. Same as in other industries where after IR35 contractors have moved from providing services through their own limited companies to fixed term contracts, where they are either salaried or through an umbrella company, they are now protected by employment law.

There will have to be some kind of performance criteria in the SG1 contract, no one is going to give up their career outside of football to sign a 1 year contract where they can get rid of you at any time without good reason. So as long as the referee meets that performance criteria they would be fully protected by employment law. They can't be made redundant as you make the role redundant not the person, so the only way of demoting them would be to clearly demonstrate that they have underperformed.

 

[santa sangria]

I may also be wrong

You can't if the referee is meeting the minimum criteria to be maintain their employed status.

However, being employed doesn't mean you have to be appointed to referee games. You could be redeployed/promoted to other roles within the organisation that dont require active refereeing.


May have been the case then. May be the case now. But you don't ever here of a referee not having their 1 year deal renewed?



There is a case at the moment awaiting judgement from supreme court (HMRC V PGMOL) re: part time referees being considered as employed. They've (HMRC) have lost the first two tribunals and appeal has been heard waiting judgment. The fact this is purely about part time referees (e.g. those outside the select groups) that points towards HMRC being satisfied as to their employment statuses, whatever that may be

This would be very interesting to know more about (another thread)

 

[RustyRef]

However, being employed doesn't mean you have to be appointed to referee games. You could be redeployed/promoted to other roles within the organisation that dont require active refereeing.

I would say there is probably one current SG1 referee who this applies to. Only refereed two EPL games this season and appears to be surgically attached to a substitution board.

That really depends on what it says in their contract though. If the contract says they are employed as a referee you can't use them as, for example, a coach, you would have to go through a consultancy process to be able to do that. But 4th official is a role carried out by a referee so they can absolutely only give you games in that role.

 

[Russell Jones]

A fixed contract is still subject to employment law though. Same as in other industries where after IR35 contractors have moved from providing services through their own limited companies to fixed term contracts, where they are either salaried or through an umbrella company, they are now protected by employment law.

There will have to be some kind of performance criteria in the SG1 contract, no one is going to give up their career outside of football to sign a 1 year contract where they can get rid of you at any time without good reason. So as long as the referee meets that performance criteria they would be fully protected by employment law. They can't be made redundant as you make the role redundant not the person, so the only way of demoting them would be to clearly demonstrate that they have underperformed.

And interestingly, at all lower FA / PGMOL levels, it's incredibly rare for officials not to meet their 'performance criteria' over the course of the season. Almost every referee typically delivers an average mark above the "standard expected", EVEN those who end up getting reclassified downwards. If this over delivery against the stated standard is also true at SG1 (which wouldn't surprise me, even in light of some high profile errors, as many games are delivered exceptionally well, despite media noise to the contrary) then this would explain why the alleged rolling contracts keep getting renewed.

 

[Big Cat]

And interestingly, at all lower FA / PGMOL levels, it's incredibly rare for officials not to meet their 'performance criteria' over the course of the season. Almost every referee typically delivers an average mark above the "standard expected", EVEN those who end up getting reclassified downwards. If this over delivery against the stated standard is also true at SG1 (which wouldn't surprise me, even in light of some high profile errors, as many games are delivered exceptionally well, despite media noise to the contrary) then this would explain why the alleged rolling contracts keep getting renewed.

Err... you'd have to be a rank bad Ref to not reach 'Standard Expected' though, surely?
Unless 'Standard Expected' means something very different at higher levels

It is a bugbear of mine (certainly at the levels within my sphere), that 'standard expected' means 'reclassified by an absolute million miles'
In my World, 70.0 should be 'standard expected' and the average in every League and the average for every observer. Why blow smoke up our arses with 'above standard & outstanding' blah blah blah? It's all really very nonsensical. Just makes 'standard expected' very difficult to standardise

 

[RustyRef]

Err... you'd have to be a rank bad Ref to not reach 'Standard Expected' though, surely?
Unless 'Standard Expected' means something very different at higher levels

It is a bugbear of mine (certainly at the levels within my sphere), that 'standard expected' means 'reclassified by an absolute million miles'
In my World, 70.0 should be 'standard expected' and the average in every League and the average for every observer. Why blow smoke up our arses with 'above standard & outstanding' blah blah blah? It's all really very nonsensical. Just makes 'standard expected' very difficult to standardise

Agree, and it has been like that for a long time. I had a season at L3 where I averaged bang on 73 for observers (standard expected was 70) and it put me in the demotion spaces, thankfully club marks saved me.

 

[Russell Jones]

Err... you'd have to be a rank bad Ref to not reach 'Standard Expected' though, surely?
Unless 'Standard Expected' means something very different at higher levels

It is a bugbear of mine (certainly at the levels within my sphere), that 'standard expected' means 'reclassified by an absolute million miles'
In my World, 70.0 should be 'standard expected' and the average in every League and the average for every observer. Why blow smoke up our arses with 'above standard & outstanding' blah blah blah? It's all really very nonsensical. Just makes 'standard expected' very difficult to standardise

I share your bemusement and frustration that those currently deemed to be delivering at or above Standard Expected at lower levels can easily end up being reclassified. A bizarre anomaly in what is otherwise (IMO) a well put together set of forms / promotion criteria. Was simply pointing out that if this system is replicated at SG1, then the lower performers may well still be delivering well enough to retain their status in light of their employment contracts.