Any Opinions???

[Ace1]

Quote from N.Ireland referee's:

 

Assessors are there as part of the referees education and they should not "feel petrified" because of a watching assessor, they should treat this as part of the learning process. I know from the body language of many referees that they become uptight because of the assessor, this is only the means by which we can help to improve refereeing standards.

 

Most referees are good at what they do, they can only apply the rules as they are framed. Where some fall down is in not using common sense.

It is important that they apply the rules within the spirit of the game rather than go by the absolute letter of the law!

 

(Looking forward to Krooner's opinion)

[Krooner]

They should get 50% of their games assessed so I dont see a problem about people being scared. I would say they are more likely to caution for time wasting, kicking ball away and things like that when their is an assessor around.

 

Clubs use it as an excuse "You only did that cos there is an assessor here". When actually they should be having a go at their player for being stupid

 

When you say it came from N.Ireland referee's I would be interested to know what body. FA, RA or some other group.

 

And I would also like "Common Sense" explained to me. Someone give me an example of where something happened that if "Common Sense" had been applied would have seen a different outcome.

 

Looking forward to this thread building

[E&E Rich]

ok, my turn!

 

Without a doubt you get more "technical" decisions when an assessor is present. It's as if they have to be seen to be ticking all the boxes. Free kicks being placed within an inch of the offence, every single incident of kicking the ball away resulting in a yellow card and god help anyone that actually disagrees with a decision.

 

These situations often make the atmosphere worse on the pitch as players seem to feel that the ref is more interested in this than in letting the game flow especially when he misses a bad challenge. We all miss them from time to time, but when a ref has booked three players for an assortment of technical breaches yet nothing for a two footed challenge (for example) then you will often see players taking the law into their own hands as they don't feel protected enough.

 

I have no problems with an assessor being present, but why does the ref need to know this until after the game? He is technically "assessed" by every single paying spectator, but because this bloke in the stand has a clipboard you see a different performance.

 

I understand you are trying to defend the official Krooner and it is a difficult job. However, by common sense I understand it to be taking the match circumstances into account not just the laws. Never booking a player for time wasting when they are on the losing side for example, or giving the benefit of the doubt based on the weather conditions. Also maybe issuing a borderline yellow card when the game is a bit fiesty, whilst not issuing it if the game is running along smoothly.

 

All of these things are ignored more often when an assessor is present and as a result you don't get a true assessment of the official. If a company wants mystery shoppers to test their staff service out they don't advertise it first. I appreciate that at our level with some of the crowd sizes we have it would be difficult to hide away completely but you get my drift.

[Gluck_ab]

Common sense; otherwise known as Law 18. As Krooner alludes to, it can have different meanings to different people.

 

In terms of refereeing, in the absence of an assessor you may find some referees will try to manage things that in the presence of an assessor will result in a caution. If you replace 'manage' with 'apply common sense' then potentially that referee is creating a problem for himself later in the game (in terms of match control and application of law) and thereafter for the referee at the team's next game.

 

Personally, I feel better knowledge of the laws of the game, and their application, by those non-referees (players, officials, commentators, journalists, etc) would go some way to addressing this issue. Too often you hear players and officials repeating what they've misheard or misinterpreted from ill-informed sources and being surprised when they are corrected.

 

As a referee progresses he will also be assessed more often - at Supply League for Level 4 referees (those who do Premier Division games) this will be a minimum of 50% of their games. This can increase if you include County Cup appointments. Therefore, you are more likely to get 'found out' if you try and referee differently as assessors are trained to identify and be aware of such issues, and so will mark accordingly.

 

As Krooner states, I'm curious to know the source of the quote. I agree that referees should see assessors as a positive thing as they will identify your strengths and development areas as self-assessment only goes so far and objective, constructive and focussed feedback can only be of benefit.

[Lee Farmie]

I think the FA's view on referees not being notified of the presence of an assessor is they don't believe in a "cloak and dagger" approach. Referees should give exactly the same decisions whether an assesor is present or not but IMO they do not. In fact I suspect they vary from assessor to assessor!

 

[Krooner]

I do but disagree. I will pick out the timewasting one. A side is leading 2-0 and have a player cautioned for say kicking the ball away. 5 minutes later an opponent does the same thing and the referee decides not to caution him because his side are losing 2-0. What happens then. The referee is not applying the laws of the game consistently (Something that is mentioend often) the side who have had a player cautioned for is go mad, so do the benches who then shout at the assistant. He then calls the ref over to deal with that. Meantime players are having a go at each other because 1 side is trying to get a player booked and the other side do not appreciate it

 

Now maybe if there was a minute left and no-one had been booked you could get away with it but as we all know it is never black and white is it.

[Don't Blame Me]

I remember my first game as a referee as a raw, snotty nosed 17 year old in the Reading Sunday League. I cautioned a player for deliberate handball on the goal line and awarded a penalty. At half time, a Class 1 referee spoke to me about my performance thus far. He was there to offer moral support. In the background, I heard one player say to his cautioned team-mate "That's why you were cautioned. The ref is being assessed". I took this as an enormous compliment.

 

The Class 1 ref discussed the reasons behind the caution. He asked if it was necessary as a penalty could be considered sufficient punishment. He had a point. In the second half, there was another handball in the penalty area. I felt that I had no option but to issue another caution so as to be consistent. The discussion post match started with a knowing look from the Clas 1 ref!

 

The issue regarding technical cautions being issued more freely when officials are being assessed is true. I have witnessed it many times. What I crave for is consistency throughout a game. Consistency from one ref to another will not happen. There are too many variables even though this is the one thing that frustrates fans, players and coaches alike.

 

One thing that I can never understand is arguing a decision. How often does an official change his or her mind after making one? The only time that I have seen it is where the referee has not seen an assistant's involvement. The sooner that players and management accept this and move on, the better.

 

One for Kroons. When Coppell was manager at Reading, one particular referee commented to him that referreeing Reading was a pleasure as he knew he would not be verbally abused or confronted throughout a game. The great Brian Clough also instilled this into his players. Much can still be learnt.

[Gluck_ab]

E&E Ed

 

Assessors inform the referee they will be present at a game so that they can be present for the referee's pre-match instructions to his ARs. This then enables him to make due consideration for the referee's and ARs subsequent individual and collective actions during the game.

 

In terms of 'technical' decisions, I presume you mean the mandatory cautions? As for 'benefit of the doubt' decisions that is a personal decision by the referee, the example you give of common sense being taking account of match circumstances only goes so far. Would you commend a referee for such a decision which avoided the issue of a card to an opposing player who subsequently erred again (warranting a card) but stayed on the pitch when he might have been sent-off?

[Krooner]

Now there is a good quote from W Ed. Crave consistency throughout a game but from one ref to another will not happen.

 

That is an excellent point that people need to remember.

 

One story from when I did it. A player from one side considered he was pushed in the back and I didnt give a free kick. He had a right go at me and to be honest he was right. About 10 minutes later he committed the same offence and I gave a free kick against him. He came storming over to me shouting. I pulled him to one side and he carried on saying how I hadnt given a foul previous. I said that he was right I hadnt and he was right I should have as he had pointed out to me. I then mentioned that I had to be right this time as I had followed his well put point from before. He looked at me, laughed and said fair enough and ran off. Should have actually cautioned the sod really !!!

[Observer 89]

In my opinion, clubs can rightly expect an official to be consistent in one game over 90 minutes.

 

But how can a referee be consistent with the referee from the game last week? He didn't see the referee's performance the week before. If you don't see consistency in the Premier League where every game is televised and key incidents are slowed down and replayed dozens of times, how can you expect a great level consistency on the Combined Counties League?

 

Despite the FA's desire to achieve greater consistency each referee interprets the laws of the game differently. The referee from one week will have a different opinion on a foul from an identical foul the week before, one referee might issue a bollocking, the other may issue a yellow card. That's human nature, we all have different opinions.

 

Clubs do need to sometimes look at their own players before pointing a finger at the referee. For example if a player kicks the ball away and delays the restart of play (a mandatory caution), then whose fault is it that he quite rightly receives a caution? Unfortunately players are very often unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.

[Smudge]

Whilst we are on the subject of the righteous ones,they who never ever have a mare,in some posters Rose Tinted eyes.Can someone inform me why since the 21st January 2012,Referees names are no longer posted on the Combined Counties (football mitoo)site.My take on assessors is as follows,why oh why are most of the assessors of a lower standard than the person they are assessing.It's alright reading books and think you know it all,but all Referees are different in their way of handling situations.If my boiler breaks down, I get a decent Plumber,not a trainee with little experience.Once summed up for me,when an assessor said the Ref. is too nice,he smiles too much.Is that wrong I asked,reply 'Well he will not get the respect of the Players'Rather have that than straight in your face,card happy officials.Players on the other hand,do not have a braincell between them,as someone has already said REFS RARELY CHANGE THEIR MINDS,EVEN AS KROONS HAS ADMITTED THEY GET A DECISION WRONG.Surrey F.A.have been kept afloat by their inability,to keep stum.

[E&E Rich]

Totally agree on the arguing with officials bit. Our players have done it far too much in recent seasons and have rightly incurred bookings.

 

However, frustration must be taken into consideration a little bit. I think I might have referred previously to our official last week against Horley. An Epsom corner was volleyed / sliced out of play by a defender for another corner. He gave a goal kick. Clearly many players and our bench complained almost as one, and he then decided to book one of our defenders for querying his decision. I couldn't hear the exact words but our lad is a nice enough chap who had only had a couple of bookings all season and he was in no way confrontational or loud as I was only twenty yards away and heard nothing. I very much doubt he would have sworn at him (although many others in the crowd did).

 

Now I accept that anyone can make a mistake, but surely they must realise when there is a massive uniform response that they might just have got it wrong, but by booking someone too they are making the situation worse and although his "management" of the game had already broken down by then, it really didn't help.

 

A bit of common sense would have helped here without a doubt.

 

Gluck_ab. Are a referee's pre-match instructions to his Assistants not all virtually the same? Surely there is a set procedure and it wouldn't then require an assessor there each time? This obsession with procedure as opposed to game management is what I have an issue with.

 

And to answer your other query, yes I would commend him and I have done so previously. In almost every case I want each team to finish with eleven men. If someone was sent off for violent conduct, then fine, but two yellows for silly offences don't really help anyone and we all know that some refs award more cards than others, so it shows that a bit more patience can be applied by certain, let's say "better" officials.

 

Kroons your example about time wasting could easily be explained away by a good official by saying that he wasn't booked as he wasted his own time which was penalty enough. A simple common sense approach (I accept this might be different if this was a two-legged tie).

[Gluck_ab]

E&E Ed

 

Pre-match instructions should not deviate too widely from standard issues to be covered in them - boots, jewellery, undershirts and shorts, how the referee divides the field in terms of responsibilities for signals (discreet and obvious), fouls and misconduct, penalties, ball over goal-line, mass confrontation, subs procedures, etc. As with any individual, there will be some who have their additions / variations on these, and the assessor needs to hear the instructions so that he knows the responsibilities delegated to the ARs.

 

Match control (or game management) can be exercised through the application of law but also in combination with a referee's presence, persona, temperament and man-management skills. The latter elements come with maturity and experience but I don't agree that 'better' officials are those that award fewer cards and avoid applying the laws of the game.

 

In respect of your position, would you consider dedicating a page of your programme to cover one law of the game each week to raise awareness? Would clubs consider it worthwhile to approach the County FA or local referees to deliver some formal or informal training on the laws of the game and their application?

[Krooner]

Ed sorry mate that doesnt wash because all you get is a huge load of grief about consistency !!! Hence the no win situation at times.

 

Now the situation you describe as above will be treated differently by different people. I hated booking people for dissent. When on my final middle on the CCL I cautioned 4 players for dissent in the last 10 minutes I knew it was time to give up because clearly the feckers had got to me. I have a number of assessments that pick out control of dissent as a development area of my game yet clubs would commend me for dealing with it by talking ! When I did it the other way I didnt like it and took the only decision I felt I could because I felt I could no longer put up with the constant moaning from players over decisions that in the majority of time I was right.

 

You are looking for a utopia that doesnt exist. you need managers and experienced players to be the judge on the referee and what the players can and cannot do with the referee. they will know if you can talk to them or if you have to keep your mouth shut or risk a card.

 

As for you Smudge that is a typical response from you. A lot of referees will apologise when they have made errors, some will not but you have to live with that. i cant remember the last time a player apologised to me after having a pop someone told him I was correct. As ever things work both ways.

 

We all want consistency from referees but as a fan of Camberley I also want conisistency from our players and do I get that ?

[Smudge]

Typical Response?Think you Refs should look closer to home,if a player is not up to scratch,he is released.Whereas if a Ref is not,it's called Sour Grapes,we must be wrong attitude.You only have to look at the difference between Premier and Div 1 Officials in this League,they all read the same Hymn Book,but all come up with a different interpretation,of how to apply the Rules.What I ask does the Referees Secretaries job entail and his 4 assistants.How can a lesser grade Ref,assess a higher grade Ref.is it because he comes at a cheaper price?

[Picto Cotts]

Interesting thread. Look, referees generally referee with as much common sense as players allow them to. As far as assessors are concerned they mark in 7 catagories. Application of Law, Match Control, Positioning & Work Rate, Alertness & Awareness, Communication, Team Work and Advantage. Each catagory is marked out of 5, the first two catagories have a weighting of x5, the other 5 a weighting of x2. 5out of 5 in each catagory would therefore mark a total of 100. You'll see then that a referee has the potential to gain, or lose, half their marks in the first two sections, which are closely related to each other. Good application of law usually results in good match control.

Assessors are instructed to deduct half a mark in application of law if a referee fails to issue a mandatory caution, eg. delaying the restart of play by kicking the ball away, failing to retreat 10 yards at a free kick stopping the kick from being taken, open and obvious dissent by word or action, so the referee has the ability to lose 2 1/2 marks everytime they fail to issue a mandatory caution.

As well as being marked by the assessor referees are also marked by each club using a similar criteria. Can you imagine how difficult it must be to try and satisfy these three parties in any given game? Thankfully most clubs mark honestly and recognize a good refereeing performance even if they've been on the 'wrong end' of some of their decisions.

Good assessors will encourage and recognize the application of common sense in certain situations. However what they will not allow is 'discretion' with mandatory cautions.

Therefore when assessors are not present referees can apply a little more discretion as opposed to common sense which I would hope every referee trys to employ in any game.

[Krooner]

Typical Response?Think you Refs should look closer to home,if a player is not up to scratch,he is released.Whereas if a Ref is not,it's called Sour Grapes,we must be wrong attitude.You only have to look at the difference between Premier and Div 1 Officials in this League,they all read the same Hymn Book,but all come up with a different interpretation,of how to apply the Rules.What I ask does the Referees Secretaries job entail and his 4 assistants.How can a lesser grade Ref,assess a higher grade Ref.is it because he comes at a cheaper price?

 

Ok Smudgey he we go.

 

The referees bottom of the marking table in the Premier division are removed from the list. So that corrects your mistake there Smudge. Look forward to the apology

 

Assessors can only assess up to the level that they referee - So that is another error of yours corrected. So I make that 2 apologies

 

Let me know if there is anything else you need correcting on Smudge.

[Smudge]

Thanks for that reply Picto,so you are verifying what people say about when Assessors are present.More stricter application of the Rules.Can you answer this question,who pays the Assessors fee,The F.A.or County F.A.

[Krooner]

Thanks for that reply Picto,so you are verifying what people say about when Assessors are present.More stricter application of the Rules.Can you answer this question,who pays the Assessors fee,The F.A.or County F.A.

 

the League pay the assessor and I believe that they get some of the money back from the FA. Not 100% certain on all of that though.

[Smudge]

Typical Response?Think you Refs should look closer to home,if a player is not up to scratch,he is released.Whereas if a Ref is not,it's called Sour Grapes,we must be wrong attitude.You only have to look at the difference between Premier and Div 1 Officials in this League,they all read the same Hymn Book,but all come up with a different interpretation,of how to apply the Rules.What I ask does the Referees Secretaries job entail and his 4 assistants.How can a lesser grade Ref,assess a higher grade Ref.is it because he comes at a cheaper price?

 

Ok Smudgey he we go.

 

The referees bottom of the marking table in the Premier division are removed from the list. So that corrects your mistake there Smudge. Look forward to the apology

 

Assessors can only assess up to the level that they referee - So that is another error of yours corrected. So I make that 2 apologies

 

Let me know if there is anything else you need correcting on Smudge.

 

Kroons,so you were a Premier Referee at C.C.L. Level?Sorry for the mistake if I HAVE MADE ONE.

 

As for Referees bottom of the marking table being demoted, I welcome that news,but the only way us hardened supporters will know if a poorly performing Referee has been demoted,after we have seen a dire performance is HOW.Now that Football Mitoo do not post Refs names,hope Mr F. Collins was on that demoted list,was he?