Stick 6km/hr on the treadmill and it's a slow jog. But one you have to average over 90 mins, where there's alot of inactivity (ball is in play for about an hour). For some one relatively fit it's a breeze. No problem at all. But what I'm suggesting is that there's alot of exaggeration in these watches due to the way they gather their data. The best way to begin to understand their accuracy is to start of with your own fitness and see if you are capable of doing the distances suggested by the technology. I've seen people suggest they're doing 9km, when it's absolutely as clear as day that they aren't physically capable of that.
Stats
- Thread starter SWRef
- Start date
Stick 6km/hr on the treadmill and it's a slow jog. But one you have to average over 90 mins, where there's alot of inactivity (ball is in play for about an hour). For some one relatively fit it's a breeze. No problem at all. But what I'm suggesting is that there's alot of exaggeration in these watches due to the way they gather their data. The best way to begin to understand their accuracy is to start of with your own fitness and see if you are capable of doing the distances suggested by the technology. I've seen people suggest they're doing 9km, when it's absolutely as clear as day that they aren't physically capable of that.
Did it mean you got a good mark, made correct decisions or just you have a snazzy watch?Never had it below 11km/hr
RefIADad
RefChat Addict
I've run an 11K (7 mile) event with a number of hills in under an hour, so I feel pretty confident that my 9-10 KM in a 90 minute match is legitimate. Now I will say that I probably do need to rely more on my positioning and less on trying to be right on top of every play. I'm not the fastest person, but I am generally always moving and normally at least at a jog for a big portion of the match. One of my referee mentors watched me work a high-level U19 girls match once and said, "Use more of this (pointing to my head) and less of these (pointing to my legs)." His point being that distance covered isn't the be-all and end-all.
One thing that I really like about the StatSports GPS tracker is the heat map. The Garmin GPS gives you field coverage, but it doesn't show where you are spending most of your time. The StatSports tracker can tell me if I'm concentrated in one area of the field or if I'm spending sufficient time around the entire coverage area. For me, if I see red in the majority of the field in between the penalty areas with some yellow inside of the penalty areas, then I feel like I'm on the right path regarding field coverage. I still have to do a better job of positioning myself so I don't have my back to my lead AR.
One thing that I really like about the StatSports GPS tracker is the heat map. The Garmin GPS gives you field coverage, but it doesn't show where you are spending most of your time. The StatSports tracker can tell me if I'm concentrated in one area of the field or if I'm spending sufficient time around the entire coverage area. For me, if I see red in the majority of the field in between the penalty areas with some yellow inside of the penalty areas, then I feel like I'm on the right path regarding field coverage. I still have to do a better job of positioning myself so I don't have my back to my lead AR.
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
Unless he had his treadmill next to a football field and refereed the game while running on a treadmill, I don't think it it meant any of those
That's neat, wouldn't mind one of those.
I like the Fitbit's tracking on the PC Logboard, because it splits every mile that you run. So you can highlight the mile and see your patrol route. It is really easy to identify which team was dominating by some of these mile splits.
Also, I think people are underestimating how accurate the watches can be, if it's using GPS, they're usually very good. I know mine is quite accurate as I've taken it on outdoor running routes and it's come back pretty much spot on. It's the non-GPS trackers that you have to be careful about IMO.
8-9km might sound like a lot, but I don't think I've ever had a game that was 8-9km full on running yet... There's always some downtime.
I have two snazzy £10 Casio watches from Argos. I got most of the decisions right in the game today, but it was as easy as it gets. Any ref could've reffed it from the car park.
Not sure I agree with that, I walked 6.5km in an hour at lunchtime today. It was a fast walk but not exactly breakneck speed and wasn't out of breath.
Anyone that can't "run" 9km in 90 minutes really shouldn't be anywhere near a football pitch.
But yes, the watches have vastly different levels of accuracy. Run in a straight line for 90 minutes and you'll probably only have a variance of 10% or so, but change different every few seconds like you do refereeing and the variance between different watches will be as big as 50%. I switched from a Garmin to a Polar v800 and the distance I covered dropped massively. I still refereed the same, my legs were still the same, but the Polar is vastly more accurate for refereeing because of the 1 second sampling rate.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I believe most (all? many?) Garmins can also be set to 1 second sampling, but it's not the default. (I've never figured out what it is on mine, as I'm not that worried about the mileage--it "feels" about right, but who knows.)
I can run 13 miles in 97 minutes which is a half marathon to give you some idea 21k for all youngsters.When I ref a better standard of football my distance drops as I have to run less . I am not wedded to the watch being accurate it is just a guide as how we run when reffing is different to how we run normally. By the way at my running club, 2 people can have the same watch run the same distance at the same pace and the difference between the 2 watches in pace and distance can be quite big, so they are not super accurate.
Can someone please explain why doing super human running makes you a better referee, I don’t get the link? Obviously if you’re parked in the centre circle that’s an issue!
Last edited:
It doesn't. I run when I need to when reffing and I run alot less now from when I first started, as I read the game better so move into positions which are beneficial rather than when I first qualified I was a cross between a headless chicken and road runner!
LIterally NO ONE is saying that it does. But it is a topic of interest.
I tend to disagree that the higher the standard the less distance you do. At the higher level the players cover a. Greater distance so naturally as the referee, you do too
Great reply and that was my point, quality not quantity
I do actually find on occasions it's less hectic at the higher levels and maybe that gives the impression it's less distance (for those not tracking?). Sunday league, it just gets humped from one end to the other. So at times all I seem to be doing is sprinting up and down the pitch, then standing still while the players fall over their feet or slice it out of play for a throw / kick it 20 yards over. At higher levels, there is more possession and build up and so you need to be constantly moving, but less flat out sprints as the ball doesn't get launched 60 yards over your head. Although the caveat being the players are much faster and fitter.
I don't think the fitness aspect of refereeing is a good indicator of overall fitness. If you're fit then refereeing is an absolute doddle.
There's plenty of people who aren't very fit who think that they are because their watch is telling them so.
Each to their own of course but for me, the distance I cover in a match is of no relevance, because it's not an indicator of fitness. Some games I could walk through, some require more effort, but it's never physically taxing to referee a football match. I don't need to know how far I've run, all I need to know is if I've been able to get into good positions throughout the game
There's plenty of people who aren't very fit who think that they are because their watch is telling them so.
Each to their own of course but for me, the distance I cover in a match is of no relevance, because it's not an indicator of fitness. Some games I could walk through, some require more effort, but it's never physically taxing to referee a football match. I don't need to know how far I've run, all I need to know is if I've been able to get into good positions throughout the game
Or you leave the Garmin's running on the 12 mile drive home.....impressive statistics.....
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Stop talking about me!