Referee's

[Mewcenary]

A referee shouldn't referee any differently when being assessed. Can you give any examples as to how a referee has 'gone to pot' due to an assessor being there?

[johnnojudo]

yes i can....... as it came from the horses mouth.......

 

 

i gave away a penalty with 5 minutes to go. Not a bad tackle, just a simple penalty. Ref didnt book me. Talked about the incident after the game in the bar and also talked about refs being assessed and he did admit that if he was being assessed he'd have had no choice but to book me. He said he used common sense and didnt book me as the game at that point was lost and a booking not required!

[Weeble]

A referee shouldn't referee any differently when being assessed. Can you give any examples as to how a referee has 'gone to pot' due to an assessor being there?

We had one the other day who wanted to fight the oppositions coach after the game as he questioned a decision....Very unsavory... And he was being assessed.....

[Krooner]

I am sure there are plenty of those sort of stories JJ but in your case there the referee is clearly unaware of how the assessing system works and as such I would suggest he doesnt listen in on their training evenings. So nothing really to do with being assessed just a guy who cant be bothered to make sure he is well informed.

 

I have assessed games where a penalty is given and the referee has not booked the player. After the game I asked the referee why he did not caution and the referee is able to explain why. I will almost always follow up with a question along the lines of if it had happened in the middle of the pitch would you have cuationed. If he says no then end of as far as i am concerned.

[Lee Farmie]

In my experience referees don't "go to pot" when being assessed but they do tend to become sticklers and the play becomes stilted and stop-start. There are exceptions are the referee under assessment at a recent match at Imber Court was top notch. I gave him a 90.

[Mewcenary]

Depends what you mean by a 'stickler'. It is down to the referee's interpretation what 'careless', 'reckless' is etc when giving fouls so as long as he can justify his opinion to an assessor, then happy days!

[johnnojudo]

I am sure there are plenty of those sort of stories JJ but in your case there the referee is clearly unaware of how the assessing system works and as such I would suggest he doesnt listen in on their training evenings. So nothing really to do with being assessed just a guy who cant be bothered to make sure he is well informed.

 

I have assessed games where a penalty is given and the referee has not booked the player. After the game I asked the referee why he did not caution and the referee is able to explain why. I will almost always follow up with a question along the lines of if it had happened in the middle of the pitch would you have cuationed. If he says no then end of as far as i am concerned.

 

I should have been booked! The referee decided not to as it was in his opinion not required. If you as the assessor had asked why he didnt book me and he replied with "i didnt feel i needed to as it was the end of the match and was unnecessary, would you have patted him on the back or said he should have followed the laws of the game?

[Krooner]

I would imagine he would have said he didn't believe the tackle was worthy of a caution and no he wouldn't have cuationed had it been in the centre of the pitch.

 

If he thinks it was a tackle deserving of a caution he should just do it !!!!

[Jurg78]

What if he say's that Kroons, but in the eyes of the assessor it was worthy of a booking? Will the assessor mark then him down (if that's what they do when assessing)? In which case the ref's opinion/handling of the game is worthless!

[Krooner]

Much more complicated than that Jurg. How can an assessor who lets say is 50 yards away from the incident how can he tell if it was a caution or not. Hence why the assessor should ask question. So for example

 

The tackle in the 55th minute looked as though it was a tackle from behind. How did you see it.

 

Yes I saw it as a tackle from behind and gave the free kick.

 

Well then you should have cautioned as a tackle from behind is a mandatory caution.

 

Or

 

The tackle in the 55th minute looked as though it was a tackled from behind. How did you see it.

 

Well I thought the player tried to tackle from the side and by the time the player went down it may have appeared from behind. That is why I only gave a free kick and spoke to the player to warn him to go careful with his tackling.

 

Hope that gives a small insight

[Smudge]

Perfectly clear Kroons,but as with Referees are their assessors who view things another way,or is their a mandatory code book.BIT LIKE NICE COP,BAD COP.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Smudge

[Krooner]

There are mandatory cautions and dismissals Smudge that have to be adhered too otherwise marks will be docked.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Smudge

[Mewcenary]

In the above example, I presume the referee would have been docked marks if he had said: "Yes, it was a caution, but it was only the last minute so I didn't see the point".

[Krooner]

He would have lost marks.

[Jurg78]

Surely a ref can just make out that the way he saw things was different to the assessor though and in theory never get marked down (a cynical way of thinking I know)?

 

How do assessors ensure that doesn't happen - or do they just hope refs are honest?

[Smudge]

Refs are the most honest people living.

 

 

[Krooner]

At times though the referee will not necessarily know what view the referee had. Because of that I would expect most refs to be honest and I think most people would. There will always be one or two that will work their way around the system but that applys to all walks of life