A&H

Watches telling me different things

dylanbailey4444

dylanbailey4444

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
Morning all,

Whilst officiating, I wear a Apple Watch using refsix on my left wrist, and a Spintso S1 Pro watch on my right. I’ve noticed this for a while- they both tell me that I ran different amounts during games and I’m not sure which one is more accurate.

For example,

I did a step 5 game as AR on the 26th November-
Refsix- 6.01K
First half- 3.82K
Second half- 2.19K

Spintso S1 Pro- 5.01K
First half-2.2K
Second half- 1.7K
(That doesn’t add up to 5.01K?)


Does anyone have any ideas? Some of the games on the spintso watch don’t add up- the first half and second half put together don’t add up to what the watch is telling me overall?

Maybe I’ve done something wrong here. Any help is much appreciated.
 
The Referee Store
This is something you'll always find with different types of GPS watches through various factors (sampling rates, accuracy, quality etc)



My old garmin told me I was doing 5k a half, my new polar 3.7k for example.
 
dylanbailey4444 said:
Morning all,

Whilst officiating, I wear a Apple Watch using refsix on my left wrist, and a Spintso S1 Pro watch on my right. I’ve noticed this for a while- they both tell me that I ran different amounts during games and I’m not sure which one is more accurate.

For example,

I did a step 5 game as AR on the 26th November-
Refsix- 6.01K
First half- 3.82K
Second half- 2.19K

Spintso S1 Pro- 5.01K
First half-2.2K
Second half- 1.7K
(That doesn’t add up to 5.01K?)


Does anyone have any ideas? Some of the games on the spintso watch don’t add up- the first half and second half put together don’t add up to what the watch is telling me overall?

Maybe I’ve done something wrong here. Any help is much appreciated.
Click to expand...
I'm sure people will think differently but to me doing almost 4k in one half of step 5 football seems unlikely. There's plenty of stoppages and time when the ball is in the other half. I'm sure others will come on and state when they've done that distance and more but to me it seems u unlikely.

Personally I don't use smart watches for refereeing. The constant changes in direction and ping rates of the watches make accurate data very difficult to achieve. I also found some refs were attributing distance run equalling good performance which is nonsense. It seemed to promote bad habits ie running for the sake of it and getting into worse positions.

Everyone is different and for those who are on journeys from positions of weaker fitness I think they'd be a good tool. But for me they seem an unnecessary distraction.
 
es1 said:
This is something you'll always find with different types of GPS watches through various factors (sampling rates, accuracy, quality etc)



My old garmin told me I was doing 5k a half, my new polar 3.7k for example.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It is quite annoying as I want them to be accurate!😂 I seem to trust my Apple Watch more naturally. I’m not sure why.
 
Ben448844 said:
I'm sure people will think differently but to me doing almost 4k in one half of step 5 football seems unlikely. There's plenty of stoppages and time when the ball is in the other half. I'm sure others will come on and state when they've done that distance and more but to me it seems u unlikely.

Personally I don't use smart watches for refereeing. The constant changes in direction and ping rates of the watches make accurate data very difficult to achieve. I also found some refs were attributing distance run equalling good performance which is nonsense. It seemed to promote bad habits ie running for the sake of it and getting into worse positions.

Everyone is different and for those who are on journeys from positions of weaker fitness I think they'd be a good tool. But for me they seem an unnecessary distraction.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a bit much too but I seem to usually get a fair amount run when I’m on the line. I get what you mean about the smart watches. Sometimes I feel like that. I do find it interesting to see how far I’ve run so do like to keep track of it.
 
dylanbailey4444 said:
I thought it was a bit much too but I seem to usually get a fair amount run when I’m on the line. I get what you mean about the smart watches. Sometimes I feel like that. I do find it interesting to see how far I’ve run so do like to keep track of it.
Click to expand...

The only thing I'd say about lines is whatever you've run, it's not going to be much considering a game will be 95 mins or so. Its an irrelevance to me. 95 mins of actual cardio work either on the road or on a treadmill for example would be triple or quadruple what you do on the line during a game. Focusing on distance on the line is completely irrelevant for any purpose really. It's not a measure of performance and the fitness benefits of doing lines are less than doing 95 mins of exercise including continuous walking.
 
When I switched from Polar to Apple Watch my refereeing distance covered dropped by around 30%. There are two factors ...
  • Sampling rate, i.e. how often GPS positions are taken
  • GPS watches are primarily designed for things like running and cycling, and generally in those activities you are running in a straight line, usually at a steady pace. Refereeing is totally different, there are constant changes of direction and pace, and the watches struggle to plot exactly where you have been. A lower sampling rate helps, but even one second isn't low enough to be 100% accurate, you would need the dedicated types of devices that players wear on their backs.
 
dylanbailey4444 said:
Morning all,

Whilst officiating, I wear a Apple Watch using refsix on my left wrist, and a Spintso S1 Pro watch on my right. I’ve noticed this for a while- they both tell me that I ran different amounts during games and I’m not sure which one is more accurate.

For example,

I did a step 5 game as AR on the 26th November-
Refsix- 6.01K
First half- 3.82K
Second half- 2.19K

Spintso S1 Pro- 5.01K
First half-2.2K
Second half- 1.7K
(That doesn’t add up to 5.01K?)


Does anyone have any ideas? Some of the games on the spintso watch don’t add up- the first half and second half put together don’t add up to what the watch is telling me overall?

Maybe I’ve done something wrong here. Any help is much appreciated.
Click to expand...
3.82K sounds WAY too much - think the further I've ever done on the line in one half was around 3.2/3.3, and that was a very end-to-end Step 3 game with plenty of added time.

As others have said, it will depend on accuracy and sampling rate, and also on signal strength - if it loses signal it can "wander" until it reacquires. I was fourth official on a game last year, and the dugouts were covered by the roof of the main stand. According to my Garmin watch, I did 0.9K in the first half, 1.19K during half time, and 0.58K in the second half.
 
RustyRef said:
When I switched from Polar to Apple Watch my refereeing distance covered dropped by around 30%. There are two factors ...
  • Sampling rate, i.e. how often GPS positions are taken
  • GPS watches are primarily designed for things like running and cycling, and generally in those activities you are running in a straight line, usually at a steady pace. Refereeing is totally different, there are constant changes of direction and pace, and the watches struggle to plot exactly where you have been. A lower sampling rate helps, but even one second isn't low enough to be 100% accurate, you would need the dedicated types of devices that players wear on their backs.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this.

Unless you show up with special pro foot tracking tech, because our movement in the middle is so varied then +/- 25%.
For the OP, if you look deep into the tech, you will probably find (wild guess) the Apple watch has a lower sampling rate, or something like that.

With the Garmins, I find the heat map really useful. Normally I can recognize all the lines of the runs I have done into corners or to sidelines to give sanctions etc. And sprints are highlighted. The map is superimposed on the satellite image, so it would not be so hard to measure e.g. the penalty box lines and do a series of jogs, runs, crabs, walks, backwards, forwards etc. for 4-5km to test the real world accuracy.

Someone with a monetized YouTube channel should do this with 3-4 of the brands/model and watch that AdRev roll in!
 
ARF said:
3.82K sounds WAY too much - think the further I've ever done on the line in one half was around 3.2/3.3, and that was a very end-to-end Step 3 game with plenty of added time.

As others have said, it will depend on accuracy and sampling rate, and also on signal strength - if it loses signal it can "wander" until it reacquires. I was fourth official on a game last year, and the dugouts were covered by the roof of the main stand. According to my Garmin watch, I did 0.9K in the first half, 1.19K during half time, and 0.58K in the second half.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. 3.8km on the line is very unlikely. I have been over 3.5km only a couple of times and those have been with elite boys and loads and loads of fast breaks. Normal grassroots 90 min game for an active AR I reckon is in the 1.8-2.7km range.

I think the watches (probably, guessing again) measure AR running much better than referee runs - but - big but, the sampling rate probably cannot keep up with lots of subtle crabbing shifts, so, again, the numbers on watches might be a long way out.
 
Ben448844 said:
I'm sure people will think differently but to me doing almost 4k in one half of step 5 football seems unlikely. There's plenty of stoppages and time when the ball is in the other half. I'm sure others will come on and state when they've done that distance and more but to me it seems u unlikely.

Personally I don't use smart watches for refereeing. The constant changes in direction and ping rates of the watches make accurate data very difficult to achieve. I also found some refs were attributing distance run equalling good performance which is nonsense. It seemed to promote bad habits ie running for the sake of it and getting into worse positions.

Everyone is different and for those who are on journeys from positions of weaker fitness I think they'd be a good tool. But for me they seem an unnecessary distraction.
Click to expand...
I think revisiting a match with the run lines (not just a cloudy heat map) can be really useful - makes you think again about times you could have gone to the corner, or into the box. It's made me realise I have a habit of "avoiding the benches" sometimes.
 
dylanbailey4444 said:
Morning all,

Whilst officiating, I wear a Apple Watch using refsix on my left wrist, and a Spintso S1 Pro watch on my right. I’ve noticed this for a while- they both tell me that I ran different amounts during games and I’m not sure which one is more accurate.

For example,

I did a step 5 game as AR on the 26th November-
Refsix- 6.01K
First half- 3.82K
Second half- 2.19K

Spintso S1 Pro- 5.01K
First half-2.2K
Second half- 1.7K
(That doesn’t add up to 5.01K?)


Does anyone have any ideas? Some of the games on the spintso watch don’t add up- the first half and second half put together don’t add up to what the watch is telling me overall?

Maybe I’ve done something wrong here. Any help is much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Refsix always seems to fire about 500-750M too high for me, I'll usually just knock it down by 0.5 of a K or so
 
RustyRef said:
When I switched from Polar to Apple Watch my refereeing distance covered dropped by around 30%. There are two factors ...
  • Sampling rate, i.e. how often GPS positions are taken
  • GPS watches are primarily designed for things like running and cycling, and generally in those activities you are running in a straight line, usually at a steady pace. Refereeing is totally different, there are constant changes of direction and pace, and the watches struggle to plot exactly where you have been. A lower sampling rate helps, but even one second isn't low enough to be 100% accurate, you would need the dedicated types of devices that players wear on their backs.
Click to expand...

I must buy a Polar then - increased distance covered when observing👍
...
 
RustyRef said:
When I switched from Polar to Apple Watch my refereeing distance covered dropped by around 30%. There are two factors ...
  • Sampling rate, i.e. how often GPS positions are taken
  • GPS watches are primarily designed for things like running and cycling, and generally in those activities you are running in a straight line, usually at a steady pace. Refereeing is totally different, there are constant changes of direction and pace, and the watches struggle to plot exactly where you have been. A lower sampling rate helps, but even one second isn't low enough to be 100% accurate, you would need the dedicated types of devices that players wear on their backs.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this information. I am considering dropping my Apple Watch and just using (for distance) my spintso S1 Pro. But I had a game earlier and had to put another watch on to replace my spintso (still using my Apple) as something had happened to the screen and I couldn’t sort it out. I think it was the rain. So that made me reconsider
 
Some watches let you choose sampling rate. Its been years since I looked at it on y Garmin, but I’m pretty sure there are choices And the trade off is that increased sampling rates reduces battery life vpbe tween charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top