I disagree the average should be 70 that would require as many referees to be performing below expected than are performing above. When referees are grouped at skill level that isn't going to happen.
You might have some but thats likely to outweigh those performing at expected or higher.
2ndly it's rare that a referee does every competency at expected and nothing above expected. A referee who knows what the competencies are is likely to put some effort into them to increase their output.
And even when a referee is not performing quite at expected has to be of major development to affect the mark.
It doesn't explain the large disparities in marking that we seem to have across the country and that should be reasonably level and stable but the way referees are grouped and have an understanding of the marking system is going to lend itself to average marks at above expected.
Do agree about the tendency for the average to creep up as the season wears on... Seems odd.
You might have some but thats likely to outweigh those performing at expected or higher.
2ndly it's rare that a referee does every competency at expected and nothing above expected. A referee who knows what the competencies are is likely to put some effort into them to increase their output.
And even when a referee is not performing quite at expected has to be of major development to affect the mark.
It doesn't explain the large disparities in marking that we seem to have across the country and that should be reasonably level and stable but the way referees are grouped and have an understanding of the marking system is going to lend itself to average marks at above expected.
Do agree about the tendency for the average to creep up as the season wears on... Seems odd.