I've attached my two most recent assessments for everyone's viewing pleasure.
Two Assessments
- Thread starter Ryan Owens
- Start date
There is no 'pass or fail' here. What happens is that you start at 70 and you go up for doing things well, and go down for doing things poorly. This is less about 'pass and fail' and more about offering you advice.
As Charlie said not in great depth like over here but at least you get to see your mark.
We are left guessing, I think its so that FA's can pick who they want to get promoted
We are left guessing, I think its so that FA's can pick who they want to get promoted
The idea here is to give a few things each time to improve on. They used to be extremely in depth as yours are over there, but assessors found that they were giving the same advice over and over again and referees find it more effective to get three points of improvement to really focus on. Of course, some assessors are a bit better at giving full assessments than others and the written assessment is given in conjunction with a verbal assessment immediately after the match wherein they are more detailed. The document itself is a summary of the points covered, and a scoring.
We do still get 3 points of improvement, and 3 points of strengths. Just get a massive description of key match incidents too!
Steve, the reason for not giving the scores out to level 7's, 6's and 5's is to try and stop them from losing faith - basically. If as a level 7 ref you saw your score and it was 65, some people wouldn't want to continue as they would feel 'below par', and they would feel as though they could never improve! Just a way of them keeping as many people as they can on the promotion scheme. At least that is what I was told at my promotion information evening!
I think they felt that giving the long description of key match incidents would be information overload and unnecessary (and I'm inclined to agree). The key match events are only important insofar as whether you handled them well or poorly and point to more general areas of importance, imo. So if, for example, you make a penalty decision and don't employ the correct mechanic, that would be an area for improvement that could be one of the three if it was important enough/you didn't more basic, glaring weaknesses.
As for the scores, in Canada we are scored relative to our level. A score of 70 means you've done everything required/expected of you at your current level.
I see the point, but it also works the other way, if your not told your score how do you know that you need to improve? You may feel you have had some great assessments and a good season still to be refused promotion, because you assessments weren't good enough but you were never told your scores.
In my view if you get your assessment marks then you will try harder to get the score up or continue to perform high to keep high marks
I don't see how anyone can perform well or improve if you don't know how well or not so well your doing.
In addition to that, do you really want to keep the people who are going to so easily be discouraged?
Problem is that with the amount of matches played each weekend there is a shortfall of match officials as a whole and county FAs are always looking for new referees
Yes, but the ones who aren't going anywhere don't typically need to even be assessed.
Well that is very true but anyone who meets the requirements are allowed to apply for promotion even if they have no chance of ever getting it. Again by sharing the overall marks then that person may just say why am I kidding myself and stay with the level they are at. The same with club marks.
On the downside a lot of referees may turn around and say they don't appreciate me and put their poor performance down to assessors marks and not them
On the downside a lot of referees may turn around and say they don't appreciate me and put their poor performance down to assessors marks and not them
Steve, another reason could be that if you get assessed by an assessor, and they give you 65 - you fail overall. The next time you apply for promotion, you will spend your whole season hoping not to get 'that' assessor again. Then if you do get him/her, it could potentially cause problems for them. Of course, most people are not like that, but there are a few people who are!
I see what your saying but, if you perform poor at work they tell you in clear terms on what you need to improve on.
As a referee I would like to know what im good at and what I need to improve at, otherwise I may continue to think all is good and they (CFA) just don't like me and will not promote me because my face don't fit.
Its a catch two but I do think they will get better results and improve the standard of refereeing by telling everyone there marks.
As a referee I would like to know what im good at and what I need to improve at, otherwise I may continue to think all is good and they (CFA) just don't like me and will not promote me because my face don't fit.
Its a catch two but I do think they will get better results and improve the standard of refereeing by telling everyone there marks.
Apply for promotion, then you'll get a measure of how well you are doing against the expected standards. Thinking everyone gets promoted because their face fits is rubbish. At level 7-6 and 6-5, when a promotion board sits they are presented with the data on the individual but with no name attached. Their performance is measured against set criteria. If it meets the criteria, they get promoted. If it doesn't, they don't
I don't much like that system at all. Referees should be judged more based on their on-field presence, their accuracy in decision-making, and their chances of going forward from there (ie: it's no use promoting a fifty year old as he'll never be able to make it to the top). For me, the numbers are just one piece of the pie, and the rest of it is the personal impressions left on the assessors and members of the promotion committee (which should exist at the county level for promotions until a certain point at which point the RA itself, on a national level, should have the sole prerogative for promotion although CFAs may still be able to nominate referees for promotion).
Ryan, as someone who turns 50 in a little over 4 weeks I find your comments more than a little offensive. I would also point out that in this country (and I don't know what the law is like in your country) but we have a piece of legislation called the Equality Act 2010 which specifically prohibits discrimination on the grounds of age. So to stop someone progressing purely on the basis of their age (by virtue of their perceived future contribution) is illegal
No offense is intended, Brian. I'm simply saying that because it would be impossible for you to ever reach the premier league based on your age (do you not have a referee age limit in place at the Premier League? Most top leagues in Europe and elsewhere do and I know UEFA and FIFA both have an age limit (which they are going to drop) in place for their lists of officials as well), it would be more beneficial to the organization as a whole to promote a younger candidate who may well be able to make it to the top level of football. UEFA have done many, many tests which have proved that referees are at their peak performance between the ages of 40 and 48 (give or take a few years, of course) but, by 50 one has generally reached the limit of their plateau in terms of performance and, therefore, would not be likely to improve a great deal. Perhaps, on a case-by-case basis this would not be true and that's why there needs to be a level of discretion to the promotion process, but it is, in general, true.
No, there is no age limit on officials on the EPL, it is illegal to have one. The referees are there based on performance and ability to keep on passing the fitness tests. Other factors may come into play, but age on its own, is not allowed to be used as the sole reason for demotion.
Ah, that's where I was mistaken. Sorry, then.